NationStates Jolt Archive

Based on this from the suicide thread:

No, what people think is rational is culturally relative, that doesn't mean they are all equally right.

Is Hydesland correct?

I have often thought about the line betwen sanity and insanity, who gets to say what insane is for example?

Does a thought that is considered not rational in one culture mean that it is not rational in all cultures?

I knew this thread was coming.

I would say they are all equally *wrong*. Rationality is only relative because everyone who defines it is human coming from a skewed perceptive. There probably is some greater "rationality", but we are incapable of pointing it out.

As far as sanity and insanity - "Insanity is the sane response to an insane world."

I knew this thread was coming.

I would say they are all equally *wrong*. Rationality is only relative because everyone who defines it is human coming from a skewed perceptive. There probably is some greater "rationality", but we are incapable of pointing it out.

As far as sanity and insanity - "Insanity is the sane response to an insane world."


Yeah I'm agreeing with you on this one.

I would say they are all equally *wrong*. Rationality is only relative because everyone who defines it is human coming from a skewed perceptive. There probably is some greater "rationality", but we are incapable of pointing it out.

As far as sanity and insanity - "Insanity is the sane response to an insane world."

I'll be agreeing with you then - my response exactly.

I knew this thread was coming.

I would say they are all equally *wrong*. Rationality is only relative because everyone who defines it is human coming from a skewed perceptive. There probably is some greater "rationality", but we are incapable of pointing it out.


This really is just rhetoric though.

Ofcourse there is a defined rationality. 1+1=2. The reason conservatives are put off by liberals is the definite faith in a relativistic world. Family, faith, love, hope, justice, righteousness, kindness, all are definite bits of rationality. Most if not all of the world's major religions believe in this. They just disagree about the means.

This really is just rhetoric though.

No, it's really not. The recognition that you may have a cultural bias is the first step towards listening and accepting other peoples' views. If you think that you are not biased - then you are surely biased.

The least biased you can be is when you admit you're biased.

Ofcourse there is a defined rationality. 1+1=2. The reason conservatives are put off by liberals is the definite faith in a relativistic world. Family, faith, love, hope, justice, righteousness, kindness, all are definite bits of rationality. Most if not all of the world's major religions believe in this. They just disagree about the means.

Depends on the numeric system. 1+1=10 is also true.

Within any given culture, rationality will be judged according to what facilitates or interferes with a person operating as a functioning member of the society.

NOTE: In this discussion, I am using "rationality" as an imperfect synonym for "sanity." I am not using it in the sense of a way of thinking based on reason. Just look at politics to see that reason is not necessary for a person to be considered rational.

Different cultures have different expectations for their members, and something that is seen as functional and constructive in one society may be seen as dysfunctional and disruptive in another. Hence, from culture to culture, there can be significant and often surprising differences in what constitutes such things as "rational," as well as such things as "moral" or "anti-social."

No, it's really not. The recognition that you may have a cultural bias is the first step towards listening and accepting other peoples' views. If you think that you are not biased - then you are surely biased.

The least biased you can be is when you admit you're biased.

I've already admitted to being biased multiple times in the other thread. But that's completely separate to what you're saying, which is the idea that we're actually incapable of being rational, which is obvious nonsensical rhetoric.

I've already admitted to being biased multiple times in the other thread. But that's completely separate to what you're saying, which is the idea that we're actually incapable of being rational, which is obvious nonsensical rhetoric.
The above is the actual example of nonsensical rhetoric. You misrepresent what Galloism said. You also ignore the fact that this thread is attempting to open an entirely new discussion about societial attitudes and culture, not whether or not your argument in the other thread was biased.

I've already admitted to being biased multiple times in the other thread. But that's completely separate to what you're saying, which is the idea that we're actually incapable of being rational, which is obvious nonsensical rhetoric.

We're perfectly capable of being rational - within the confines of the culture and education we have been exposed to.

Humans, after all, are rational beings.

The above is the actual example of nonsensical rhetoric. You misrepresent what Galloism said. You also ignore the fact that this thread is attempting to open an entirely new discussion about societial attitudes and culture, not whether or not your argument in the other thread was biased.

It seemed that he was indirectly saying that I wont admit to being biased.

We're perfectly capable of being rational - within the confines of the culture and education we have been exposed to.


Do you think that some humans are less biased than others?

Do you think that some humans are less biased than others?

Of course, but I'm biased. :p

Do you think that some humans are less biased than others?

I couldn't be more biased without running for the position of President.

Of course, but I'm biased. :p

So when some humans are less biased than others, they are moving closer to actual un-skewed rationality, right?

So when some humans are less biased than others, they are moving closer to actual un-skewed rationality, right?

Possibly - but it's impossible for another human to tell without his own bias interfering with the judgment. Essentially, it would be an invisible trait.

Possibly - but it's impossible for another human to tell without his own bias interfering with the judgment. Essentially, it would be an invisible trait.

But the trait exists?

But the trait exists?

I'm open to the possibility.

I'm open to the possibility.

Perhaps this would run smoother if Hy could provide us with an example of something that is objectinaly rational?

Perhaps this would run smoother if Hy could provide us with an example of something that is objectinaly rational?

Barry wants to get drunk, in front of Barry is ten shots of vodka, and a loaf of bread. Barry may either choose the loaf of bread or the ten shots of vodka. Barry is a human being. Reason would suggest that Barry should choose the shots of vodka, if he wants to accomplish his goal.

Barry wants to get drunk, in front of Barry is ten shots of vodka, and a loaf of bread. Barry may either choose the loaf of bread or the three shots of vodka. Barry is a human being. Reason would suggest that Barry should choose the shots of vodka, if he wants to accomplish his goal.

Who can get drunk on three shots of vodka? Anyway...

Clarisse is a fundamental Baptist. She doesn't believe in drinking at all. Drinking is a sin. Therefore, she believes Barry is irrational for trying to get drunk.

Who can get drunk on three shots of vodka? Anyway...


Typo edited.


Clarisse is a fundamental Baptist. She doesn't believe in drinking at all. Drinking is a sin. Therefore, she believes Barry is irrational for trying to get drunk.

I didn't say his goal was rational, in this particular case, I'm saying the method he chose in order to achieve his goal was rational.

I didn't say his goal was rational, in this particular case, I'm saying the method he chose in order to achieve his goal was rational.

Ah, point.

I'm Bob. I hate vodka. I think Long Island Iced Tea is more effective. I think that Barry should make Long Islands instead.

However, if you're arguing that Barry's out of cash, and Vodka's all there is - Bob agrees that Barry is making a rational choice.

However, if you're arguing that Barry's out of cash, and Vodka's all there is - Bob agrees that Barry is making a rational choice.

There you go then.

Depends on the numeric system. 1+1=10 is also true.

yep depends entirely on the base . . .also the limit sum of 1+1 can . . .eventually . . .become whatever you want it to

There you go then.
Where you go?

How does your hypothetical drunk in any way address the question of whether rationality is culturally relative?

In a culture where vodka is believed to be poisonous, Barry would be considered irrational to drink it, regardless of how drunk he would get from it. In such a culture, everyone would "know" that only a nut drinks vodka, while sane people drink rum.

This reminds me of a Ren & Stimpy cartoon, where the guys were cast as Royal Canadian Yaksmen (don't ask), and they got lost in the wilderness, and while Ren was out scouting for supplies, the others decided to stave off starvation by eating dirt. And when Ren comes back and finds them chowing merrily on dirt, he yells:

"Stop! You can't eat that! That dirt is POISON! I'll show you were the GOOD DIRT is."

From one culture to another, the question of whether Barry's choice to drink vodka is rational or not can very easily come down to a poison dirt versus good dirt distinction.

If I remember, he was trying to give an example of something objectively rational, as was requested. Ren & Stimpy? Really?

If I remember, he was trying to give an example of something objectively rational, as was requested. Ren & Stimpy? Really?
Yeah, really. That's how "objectively rational" I think his example is in the context of the thread topic.

Yeah, really. That's how "objectively rational" I think his example is in the context of the thread topic.

As though we ever care what the thread was originally about?

Where you go?

How does your hypothetical drunk in any way address the question of whether rationality is culturally relative?

In a culture where vodka is believed to be poisonous, Barry would be considered irrational to drink it, regardless of how drunk he would get from it. In such a culture, everyone would "know" that only a nut drinks vodka, while sane people drink rum.

This reminds me of a Ren & Stimpy cartoon, where the guys were cast as Royal Canadian Yaksmen (don't ask), and they got lost in the wilderness, and while Ren was out scouting for supplies, the others decided to stave off starvation by eating dirt. And when Ren comes back and finds them chowing merrily on dirt, he yells:

"Stop! You can't eat that! That dirt is POISON! I'll show you were the GOOD DIRT is."

From one culture to another, the question of whether Barry's choice to drink vodka is rational or not can very easily come down to a poison dirt versus good dirt distinction.

See:


I didn't say his goal was rational, in this particular case, I'm saying the method he chose in order to achieve his goal was rational.

As though we ever care what the thread was originally about?
It's only page 3. A hijack is premature.

See:
I know. I was saying that, from one culture to another, his choice of method to achieve his goal could be seen as irrational.

EDIT: Therefore, in the context of cultural relativity, people will not necessarily agree that it is objectively rational to drink vodka to get drunk.

It's only page 3. A hijack is premature.


I know. I was saying that, from one culture to another, his choice of method to achieve his goal could be seen as irrational.


No, you're saying his choice to get drunk is irrational, not his choice of method. His choice of method is rational should he want to achieve his goal, one choice will get him drunk, one choice will not get him drunk, he chose the one that will.

It's only page 3. A hijack is premature.

Oh ye of little faith.

EDIT: Therefore, in the context of cultural relativity, people will not necessarily agree that it is objectively rational to drink vodka to get drunk.

People rarely agree about anything, that's not saying much.

Ah, I misread what you were saying Mura. The people are saying that vodka is poisonous are wrong, it isn't poisonous, thus Barry is still acting rationally.

What's the judgement call for when cultures collide?

For example, let's take Bob. He's from Stvrrllyht, where citizens must read road signs aloud or they will be lined up and kicked by a donkey until impotent. However, he's in Oeaeeao, where anyone who reads a road sign aloud is stoned to death, chopped into tiny pieces, and then mailed home one piece at a time. Naturally, Bob reads a streetsign aloud and gets stoned to death.

How do you handle that one?

No, you're saying his choice to get drunk is irrational, not his choice of method. His choice of method is rational should he want to achieve his goal, one choice will get him drunk, one choice will not get him drunk, he chose the one that will.
Ugh! No, I'm NOT saying that.

This is what makes it impossible to debate with you. A person explains what they are saying, and you give them a fucking argument about it. I told you what I was saying. Address it or dismiss it, but do not waste my time asking me to defend an argument I DID NOT MAKE. Geez.

What's the judgement call for when cultures collide?

For example, let's take Bob. He's from Stvrrllyht, where citizens must read road signs aloud or they will be lined up and kicked by a donkey until impotent. However, he's in Oeaeeao, where anyone who reads a road sign aloud is stoned to death, chopped into tiny pieces, and then mailed home one piece at a time. Naturally, Bob reads a streetsign aloud and gets stoned to death.

How do you handle that one?

Well, that clearly wasn't a good idea.

Ugh! No, I'm NOT saying that.

This is what makes it impossible to debate with you. A person explains what they are saying, and you give them a fucking argument about it. I told you what I was saying. Address it or dismiss it, but do not waste my time asking me to defend an argument I DID NOT MAKE. Geez.

See my post after that.

However, he's in Oeaeeao, where anyone who reads a road sign aloud is stoned to death, chopped into tiny pieces, and then mailed home one piece at a time.

I support this law.

Ah, I misread what you were saying Mura. The people are saying that vodka is poisonous are wrong, it isn't poisonous, thus Barry is still acting rationally.
Are they wrong? Vodka is poisonous. All alcoholic beverages are poisonous, if you take them in a large enough dose. Their toxicity is what causes them to make us drunk in lesser doses.

A belief that vodka is poisonous would not be irrational, but an insistance that there is no safe dose, might be irrational compared to facts IF medical reasons are cited for why people should not drink vodka but should drink rum.

Historical example: Once upon a time in America, people thought tomatoes were poisonous. In fact, tomato plants ARE poisonous, but the fruit is not (tomatoes are of the nightshade family). The belief that tomatoes were poisonous and not safe to eat was based on incomplete information, but it was not irrational. If the anti-vodka culture believes vodka to be too dangerous to drink because of faulty information, that does not make them irrational in holding that view.

Also, there are other rational reasons for adopting a view that, seen from another angle, might seem irrational. For instance, there might be a social benefit to maintaining a certain prejudice about a certain matter.

Historical example: Once upon a time, when people in cultures such as Britain and the US regularly imbibed enormous amounts of alcohol in the form of beer or gin (often starting in early childhood), rum was denounced as an immoral beverage that would destroy a good person's character as well as their health. (Good old "demon rum".)

Why would they single out one alcoholic drink, and not others? Because rum was associated with certain trades and lifestyles (maritime trade, the old slave trade, the lifestyle of sailors, associations with other races) that other segments of the societies had an interest in denying or marginalizing. Even the fact that it was foreign, as opposed to locally made beers and liquors, was enough to brand it as bad, whereas the products of the discriminating culture would be seen as good.

Now, if you're just going to judge rationality based on conformity with facts about the thing in question, then none of those ways of thinking are rational. But if you are going to judge rationality by the motivation of thinker, and by the benefits to the thinker gained by holding the thoughts, then all of them can be rational, in context. (The benefits being maintaining higher social status for one's own culture or segment of culture.)

In the first example, the thought is rational but mistaken.

In the second example, the thought is rational if not entirely honest.

But if you are going to judge rationality by the motivation of thinker, and by the benefits to the thinker gained by holding the thoughts, then all of them can be rational, in context.

That seems like a silly thing to do. I mean, sure, if you're talking inter-personal relations and you want to placate them, it's a nice spiel, but otherwise...

Ah, I misread what you were saying Mura. The people are saying that vodka is poisonous are wrong, it isn't poisonous, thus Barry is still acting rationally.

BUT! It is poisonous and that's why you get drunk... be rational man!

What's the judgement call for when cultures collide?

For example, let's take Bob. He's from Stvrrllyht, where citizens must read road signs aloud or they will be lined up and kicked by a donkey until impotent. However, he's in Oeaeeao, where anyone who reads a road sign aloud is stoned to death, chopped into tiny pieces, and then mailed home one piece at a time. Naturally, Bob reads a streetsign aloud and gets stoned to death.

How do you handle that one?
Nothing for it but to wage horrible war for generations. *nods*

Clearly, Bob choice to read the road sign aloud is rational from his own cultural point of view, and it would be natural for him to think the other culture's view is irrational.

But the other culture will have the exact same attitude, that they are the rational ones and Bob's culture is irrational.

That seems like a silly thing to do. I mean, sure, if you're talking inter-personal relations and you want to placate them, it's a nice spiel, but otherwise...
I'm thinking in only pragmatic terms. If a person chooses to do something to gain a real benefit, and indeed they get that real benefit from the thing, then I do not see how their choice to do that was irrational.

If a real social benefit can be gained by promoting -- even by convincing oneself to believe -- the fiction that vodka is somehow worse to drink than rum, then how is it irrational for people to do that?

Being self-serving =/= irrational. Being dishonest =/= irrational.

Are they wrong? Vodka is poisonous. All alcoholic beverages are poisonous, if you take them in a large enough dose. Their toxicity is what causes them to make us drunk in lesser doses.

A belief that vodka is poisonous would not be irrational, but an insistance that there is no safe dose, might be irrational compared to facts IF medical reasons are cited for why people should not drink vodka but should drink rum.


So you believe there can be rational and irrational beliefs that transcend cultures?


Historical example: Once upon a time in America, people thought tomatoes were poisonous. In fact, tomato plants ARE poisonous, but the fruit is not (tomatoes are of the nightshade family). The belief that tomatoes were poisonous and not safe to eat was based on incomplete information, but it was not irrational.

But it wasn't rational enough, because they assumed that just because part of something is poisonous, all of it is.


If the anti-vodka culture believes vodka to be too dangerous to drink because of faulty information, that does not make them irrational in holding that view.


It suggests that they didn't apply reasoning correctly enough, somewhere down the line, which means that they have this faulty information.


Historical example: Once upon a time, when people in cultures such as Britain and the US regularly imbibed enormous amounts of alcohol in the form of beer or gin (often starting in early childhood), rum was denounced as an immoral beverage that would destroy a good person's character as well as their health. (Good old "demon rum".)


Would you call that rational?


Why would they single out one alcoholic drink, and not others? Because rum was associated with certain trades and lifestyles (maritime trade, the old slave trade, the lifestyle of sailors, associations with other races) that other segments of the societies had an interest in denying or marginalizing. Even the fact that it was foreign, as opposed to locally made beers and liquors, was enough to brand it as bad, whereas the products of the discriminating culture would be seen as good.

Again, would you call that rational? I wouldn't.


But if you are going to judge rationality by the motivation of thinker, and by the benefits to the thinker gained by holding the thoughts, then all of them can be rational, in context.

I agree with what Dinaverg says here.

I have often thought about the line between sanity and insanity, who gets to say what insane is for example?
Does a thought that is considered not rational in one culture mean that it is not rational in all cultures?

I used to plead for renewable energy such as generated by wind farms, solar and the like. I pleaded against dependence on oil. Argued against unbridled consumerism. They called me irrational, bordering on insane. Well, ok, an unrealistic tree hugger at least.
How's that, you say?
Well, that was forty years ago. So what does "irrational", "insane" or even "one culture" really mean?

Nothing for it but to wage horrible war for generations. *nods*

Clearly, Bob choice to read the road sign aloud is rational from his own cultural point of view, and it would be natural for him to think the other culture's view is irrational.

But the other culture will have the exact same attitude, that they are the rational ones and Bob's culture is irrational.

I think, and it's hard to picture the thought processes of the people that would make these laws, but I think they'd be able to realize, whether or not the other culture's view is rational, getting stoned and cut up is not something they want to achieve, and the rational choice is for Bob to not read the sign. Maybe he could also start a campaign to change the law while he's at it, but disagreeing alone doesn't make it rational to disobey.

I used to plead for renewable energy such as generated by wind farms, solar and the like. I pleaded against dependence on oil. Argued against unbridled consumerism. They called me irrational, bordering on insane. Well, ok, an unrealistic tree hugger at least.
How's that, you say?
Well, that was forty years ago. So what does "irrational", "insane" or even "one culture" really mean?

'they called you'

Were you irrational?

However, he's in Oeaeeao, where anyone who reads a road sign aloud is stoned to death, chopped into tiny pieces, and then mailed home one piece at a time. Naturally, Bob reads a streetsign aloud and gets stoned to death.


Was he ware of this?

If a real social benefit can be gained by promoting -- even by convincing oneself to believe -- the fiction that vodka is somehow worse to drink than rum, then how is it irrational for people to do that?

With the information given, that doesn't sound irrational. But then, when we were considering that whole issue of getting drunk, between vodka and bread, it strikes me as irrelevant. It's no surprise that you can justify lying. As far as honesty goes, the best policy it ain't.

So you believe there can be rational and irrational beliefs that transcend cultures?
No, because the judgment of whether an idea is rational or irrational is applied by a culture.

I value rationality very highly, but I do my best always to remember that I am arguing as a product of my culture and what I consider rational and even the means by which I judge rationailty are shaped by that culture.

Just knowing that is not going to make me doubt my own judgments of rationality, but it does stop me from assuming that other cultures are necessarily irrational if they do not agree with me.

And if I'm going to argue rationality with someone from another culture, I must be careful always to make clear what kind of measure of rationality I am using.

But it wasn't rational enough, because they assumed that just because part of something is poisonous, all of it is.
I say they were 100% rational because they reached a conclusion based on the information that was available to them. Who does any different? Who can do any different?

Do you consider it rational to expect people to base their conclusions on information they do not have? Or do you consider it rational for people to always assume they might be missing information and, thus, never reach any conclusions? I wouldn't think either of those was rational.

It suggests that they didn't apply reasoning correctly enough, somewhere down the line, which means that they have this faulty information.
I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. What it suggests to me is more that you don't know what "rational" means. How can you say reaching a conclusion that accounts for and conforms to all available information is faulty reasoning just becuase, later, more information comes to light that changes things?

Would you call that rational?



Again, would you call that rational? I wouldn't.
If done for the reasons I described, yes. I wouldn't call it honest or ethical, but rational? Sure.

I agree with what Dinaverg says here.
Then I refer you to my response to Dinaverg.

I think, and it's hard to picture the thought processes of the people that would make these laws, but I think they'd be able to realize, whether or not the other culture's view is rational, getting stoned and cut up is not something they want to achieve, and the rational choice is for Bob to not read the sign. Maybe he could also start a campaign to change the law while he's at it, but disagreeing alone doesn't make it rational to disobey.
No doubt, Bob should have made an effort to know the law and customs of the country he was visiting before going there, and then he could have avoided the problem.

However, if Bob is not aware of the law, why would he even think not to read the sign aloud, if he is from a culture where it is considered necessary to do so?

With the information given, that doesn't sound irrational. But then, when we were considering that whole issue of getting drunk, between vodka and bread, it strikes me as irrelevant.
I was responding in reference to some later posts that introduced the notion that, even for the purpose of getting drunk, people might not agree that vodka is the rational choice.

It's no surprise that you can justify lying. As far as honesty goes, the best policy it ain't.
Um... what do you mean by that?

I was responding in reference to some later posts that introduced the notion that, even for the purpose of getting drunk, people might not agree that vodka is the rational choice.

*shrug* I suppose they might not agree.

Um... what do you mean by that?

Well, you took the time to point out dishonesty wasn't irrational, I was merely agreeing to that.

No doubt, Bob should have made an effort to know the law and customs of the country he was visiting before going there, and then he could have avoided the problem.

However, if Bob is not aware of the law, why would he even think not to read the sign aloud, if he is from a culture where it is considered necessary to do so?

*shrug* Fair enough, if he didn't know, such behavior is unsurprising. I imagine the same thing would happen in reverse to someone going the other way. They create an unfortunate situation for Bob, but I don't see how the cultures have any effect on what is or is not rational, only what Bob knows and what he hopes to achieve do. Or hopes to avoid, as the case may be.

measure of rationality I am using.


I believe that measures of rationality are constant across all cultures.


I say they were 100% rational because they reached a conclusion based on the information that was available to them. Who does any different? Who can do any different?


Just because they reached a conclusion based on all the available info, does not make that conclusion rational. It was still an assumption, and not a tested assumption, where they were able to test it.


Do you consider it rational to expect people to base their conclusions on information they do not have? Or do you consider it rational for people to always assume they might be missing information and, thus, never reach any conclusions? I wouldn't think either of those was rational.


No, I consider it irrational to make an assumption, that cannot be justified by the information they have alone. Like assuming that tomatoes are poisonous just because the rest of the plant is, that's a faulty assumption.


I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. What it suggests to me is more that you don't know what "rational" means. How can you say reaching a conclusion that accounts for and conforms to all available information is faulty reasoning just becuase, later, more information comes to light that changes things?


The fact that they even had this faulty information, suggests that acquiring the information wasn't done properly.


If done for the reasons I described, yes. I wouldn't call it honest or ethical, but rational? Sure.


I cannot see how you can think that. They are making what is almost the definition of an irrational judgement, they are assuming that just because certain lower classes or foreigners are associated with that drink, that means that the drink is bad.

Rationality is overrated.

Rationality is overrated.

Your face is overrated!

If I keep reading this my head might explode...

Your face is overrated!

Maybe. I haven't seen any ratings for it, though. Largely it seems to be, not overrated, but ignored and irrelevant.

I believe that measures of rationality are constant across all cultures.
This is the response I posted in the suicide thread to your original remark that rationality is not culturally relative:
I'm sorry, but how can you live in the world of today and say that? There are countless examples of cultural differences that have brought up assumptions or accusations of irrationality, as well as even more severe value judgments.

Some cultures, vastly different from each other, consider it totally rational and even socially necessary to commit murder in the form of honor killings, or revenge/retribution killings, or ritualized warfare. And there are other cultures in which [such] justifications for one person to kill another are considered irrational and evidence of cultural dysfunction or inferiority.

There are cultures in which it is considered totally irrational to think you can own the land, or to be materialistic or concerned with money, or to be bound by measurements of time. And there are other cultures where those are not only considered rational, but are included in measurements of sanity, AND are the entire working basis of the societies themselves.

Rationality most certainly is culturally relative.
Kindly account for the cultural differences described above, if measures of rationality are the same across cultures.

Just because they reached a conclusion based on all the available info, does not make that conclusion rational. It was still an assumption, and not a tested assumption, where they were able to test it.


No, I consider it irrational to make an assumption, that cannot be justified by the information they have alone. Like assuming that tomatoes are poisonous just because the rest of the plant is, that's a faulty assumption.
Oh, please.

A) Assumption, in and of itself, is not irrational.

B) How are they supposed to test it? The widespread belief that tomatoes were poisonous was based on four facts: (1) They are nightshades, and other members of the nightshade family are among the most deadly poisonous plants in the world. (2) Most of the plant IS poisonous. (3) The people who held that belief came from places where tomatoes were not native, where they had never been a part of the local cuisine, and where they had never met anyone who did eat tomatoes. (4) Competent authorities, such as doctors and botanists, who should have known better but didn't, published papers telling the lay public that tomatoes would make them sick.

So we have two true facts, one condition of lack of access to further facts, and trust in otherwise competent authorities whose job it is to advise the public on such things, and who in this case dropped the ball but in a way that the lay public could not be expected to see.

In such circumstances, how was it irrational for them to assume that tomatoes were poisonous, since parts of them are, authorities are telling people they are, and there's no one around to tell them they aren't? Do you honestly think they should have tested what they were told by eating them to see what would happen? Tell me, is that how you figured out not to drink bleach? No, it wasn't? You just read the label, or listened to the advice of others, and assumed it to be true? How irrational of you.

By the way, evidence that the tomatoes=poison assumption was not arrived at irrationally can be found in the speed with which the belief was dropped as soon as immigrants from countries where tomatoes were regularly eaten came along, and people could see that they were eating them without ill effect. This indicates that the notions about the edibleness of tomatoes was based on available facts, not irrational belief.

The fact that they even had this faulty information, suggests that acquiring the information wasn't done properly.
That is just absolute bullshit.

If you really believe that, then I will call you irrational today for every single thing you don't know now, that you might find out tomorrow.

I cannot see how you can think that. They are making what is almost the definition of an irrational judgement, they are assuming that just because certain lower classes or foreigners are associated with that drink, that means that the drink is bad.
I told you. The rationality is in the reason they accept that assumption. They do it for personal gain, an emminently rational motivation. It is the difference between sincerely believing something despite the presence of contradictory facts and for no particular reason, and choosing to believe, or at least say you believe, something regardless of whether it is true or not in order to get something you desire.

*shrug* Fair enough, if he didn't know, such behavior is unsurprising. I imagine the same thing would happen in reverse to someone going the other way. They create an unfortunate situation for Bob, but I don't see how the cultures have any effect on what is or is not rational, only what Bob knows and what he hopes to achieve do. Or hopes to avoid, as the case may be.
The cultures affect what is CONSIDERED rational or irrational in a person's behavior or thinking. Bob knows what he knows and hopes to achieve whatever he hopes for because he is a product of his culture, and all his assumptions are shaped by the world view he was raised with. He may come to change that view over time and with exposure to other views, but the effect of culture on basic assumptions should not be brushed off.

Was he ware of this?

No, he wasn't; Bob had just arrived in the nation and this is his first action upon getting on its streets.

A) Assumption, in and of itself, is not irrational.

I usually don't prefer to pick a single point like this, but I'm going to.

Human rationality itself is based upon a set of assumptions. We assume we're rational creatures capable of investigating the universe and coming up with a set of laws that cover it. We also assume that those laws are applied across the entire universe. These two assumptions serve as the foundation of philosophy, science, and most rational thought that humans have. Those two assumptions have founded religions, caused wars between groups of people, and even gave rise to such things as the atomic bomb.

Yet, what is our proof for those? We don't have any. Our definition of rational is based upon humans, and our assumption about the laws of the universe is one we likely will never be able to prove due to how much of the universe we'd need to investigate it.

Now, do I support rejecting science just because it's based on assumptions and requires them to be true right now? Nope. If anything, the assumptions themselves are part of what makes science work.

Humans, after all, are rational beings.

Wrong. Humans like to think that they are rational beings when they are actually collections of emotions and passions and have little if anything to do with rationality.

This is the response I posted in the suicide thread to your original remark that rationality is not culturally relative:

Kindly account for the cultural differences described above, if measures of rationality are the same across cultures.


Nice one completely and utterly missing the point.


B) How are they supposed to test it? The widespread belief that tomatoes were poisonous was based on four facts: (1) They are nightshades, and other members of the nightshade family are among the most deadly poisonous plants in the world. (2) Most of the plant IS poisonous. (3) The people who held that belief came from places where tomatoes were not native, where they had never been a part of the local cuisine, and where they had never met anyone who did eat tomatoes. (4) Competent authorities, such as doctors and botanists, who should have known better but didn't, published papers telling the lay public that tomatoes would make them sick.

In such circumstances, how was it irrational for them to assume that tomatoes were poisonous, since parts of them are, authorities are telling people they are, and there's no one around to tell them they aren't? Do you honestly think they should have tested what they were told by eating them to see what would happen? Tell me, is that how you figured out not to drink bleach? No, it wasn't? You just read the label, or listened to the advice of others, and assumed it to be true? How irrational of you.


It's funny how you argue as if rationality is universal, and these people are just applying the correct rationality to a lack of information. If rationality wasn't universal, then it would be utterly meaningless, in every way, for you, someone not part of their culture, to describe what they're doing as rational. Even still, the first 3 points only makes it seem more likely for them, but just because something seems likely, does not make it rational to assume that it IS the case for absolute certain. The fourth point was clearly an irrational decision on the part of the authorities.


By the way, evidence that the tomatoes=poison assumption was not arrived at irrationally can be found in the speed with which the belief was dropped as soon as immigrants from countries where tomatoes were regularly eaten came along, and people could see that they were eating them without ill effect. This indicates that the notions about the edibleness of tomatoes was based on available facts, not irrational belief.


This is just irrelevant, boring babble, you've completely bastardized the point of my original analogy anyway. It was fucking obvious that I was assuming that Barry knew that vodka was not poison.


That is just absolute bullshit.

If you really believe that, then I will call you irrational today for every single thing you don't know now, that you might find out tomorrow.


You can't call me irrational, if there is no universal measure of rationality, and it's all completely subjective. You saying I am irrational, is as equally accurate and as equally meaningless as saying I'm not irrational, if there is no universal measure. If you don't know something, the rational thing to acknowledge is that you do not know, and not make faulty assumptions.


I told you. The rationality is in the reason they accept that assumption. They do it for personal gain, an emminently rational motivation. It is the difference between sincerely believing something despite the presence of contradictory facts and for no particular reason, and choosing to believe, or at least say you believe, something regardless of whether it is true or not in order to get something you desire.

Neither of which, is a valid reason to accept something as true.

Clarisse is a fundamental Baptist. She doesn't believe in drinking at all. Drinking is a sin. Therefore, she believes Barry is irrational for trying to get drunk.
And we can debate with Clarisse about said irrationality (though she may not give two hoots to our arguments), examining the premises of her arguments, her grounds for beliefs in teetotalism.

Clarisse may certainly have internal rationality in her teetotal arguments, but we can still debate about the rationality of assuming the premises she does.



We assume we're rational creatures capable of investigating the universe and coming up with a set of laws that cover it. We also assume that those laws are applied across the entire universe. These two assumptions serve as the foundation of philosophy...
Only some philosophical theories; not all.



This is the response I posted in the suicide thread to your original remark that rationality is not culturally relative:
I'm sorry, but how can you live in the world of today and say that? There are countless examples of cultural differences that have brought up assumptions or accusations of irrationality, as well as even more severe value judgments.

Some cultures, vastly different from each other, consider it totally rational and even socially necessary to commit murder in the form of honor killings, or revenge/retribution killings, or ritualized warfare. And there are other cultures in which justifications for one person to kill another are considered irrational and evidence of cultural dysfunction or inferiority.

There are cultures in which it is considered totally irrational to think you can own the land, or to be materialistic or concerned with money, or to be bound by measurements of time. And there are other cultures where those are not only considered rational, but are included in measurements of sanity, AND are the entire working basis of the societies themselves.

Rationality most certainly is culturally relative.

Kindly account for the cultural differences described above, if measures of rationality are the same across cultures.
To interject, I'd want to differentiate between the universal (ceteris paribus) human capacity for rationality, and the culturally-specific way that differing peoples apply that rationality.

The materialistic culture and the non-materialistic culture may well differ on what they view as 'rational' behaviour to do with the ownership (or not) of property, but they are using a shared capacity to arrive at these conclusions. What's culturally-specific are the premises that make up the rational arguments for or against property ownership, not rationality itself.

Therefore, we can look at the premises that make up the culturally-specific arguments (all internally rational) for or against property ownership, and debate between them.

Based on this from the suicide thread:



Is Hydesland correct?

I have often thought about the line betwen sanity and insanity, who gets to say what insane is for example?

Does a thought that is considered not rational in one culture mean that it is not rational in all cultures?

When the mind is the way it's supposed to be based on the science that makes the brain and body run and when it runs in a way that is healthy then one is sane. Try taking a health class.

When the mind is the way it's supposed to be based on the science that makes the brain and body run and when it runs in a way that is healthy then one is sane. Try taking a health class.
Try defining your terms.

How's the brain meant to 'run' "the way it's supposed to be"? What's the 'healthy' way of 'running' a brain?

When the mind is the way it's supposed to be based on the science that makes the brain and body run and when it runs in a way that is healthy then one is sane. Try taking a health class.

When is the brain healthy?

How is it supposed to run?

You've just replaced the original question with more questions.

Nice one completely and utterly missing the point.
So you refuse to answer the question. I am not surprised, considering that your argument is bunk.

It's funny how you argue as if rationality is universal, and these people are just applying the correct rationality to a lack of information. If rationality wasn't universal, then it would be utterly meaningless, in every way, for you, someone not part of their culture, to describe what they're doing as rational. Even still, the first 3 points only makes it seem more likely for them, but just because something seems likely, does not make it rational to assume that it IS the case for absolute certain. The fourth point was clearly an irrational decision on the part of the authorities.
Bullshit, and you know it.

All I have to do is learn the parameters by which they make decisions to judge whether their actions are rational by their own standards.

And since the tomatoes=poison incident occurred in my own culture -- the US -- I am in a good position to do that.

You, on the other hand, have given me, in your posts, reason to suspect that you have no idea what this historical example refers to, which might be why your answers about it make no sense.

This is just irrelevant, boring babble, you've completely bastardized the point of my original analogy anyway. It was fucking obvious that I was assuming that Barry knew that vodka was not poison.
And you are insulting me while trying to change the point of the exchange again.

What Barry knew is not important to what I said. YOU posted that example in a thread about cultural relativity of rationality. Apply the example to cultural relativity, then, regardless of whether Barry knows he can drink vodka or not, OTHER PEOPLE from a different culture may still see his decision as irrational, if they were raised with a different set of expectations about vodka.

You are trying to blame me for staying on topic. Is that because you can't argue the topic?

You can't call me irrational, if there is no universal measure of rationality, and it's all completely subjective. You saying I am irrational, is as equally accurate and as equally meaningless as saying I'm not irrational, if there is no universal measure. If you don't know something, the rational thing to acknowledge is that you do not know, and not make faulty assumptions.
More bullshit, because I happen to know by your own statements on this forum that you belong to the same culture that I do, therefore I am equipped to make culturally relative judgments about the rationality of your arguments.

In our culture internal inconsistencies, inability to stay on point without falling to pieces, and a need to play fast and loose with terms and examples are signs of an irrational argument. Yours qualifies.

Neither of which, is a valid reason to accept something as true.
Invalid =/= irrational. A reason may be invalid because it is dishonest, for example, but dishonesty =/= irrational.

And we can debate with Clarisse about said irrationality (though she may not give two hoots to our arguments), examining the premises of her arguments, her grounds for beliefs in teetotalism.

Clarisse may certainly have internal rationality in her teetotal arguments, but we can still debate about the rationality of assuming the premises she does.




Only some philosophical theories; not all.




To interject, I'd want to differentiate between the universal (ceteris paribus) human capacity for rationality, and the culturally-specific way that differing peoples apply that rationality.

The materialistic culture and the non-materialistic culture may well differ on what they view as 'rational' behaviour to do with the ownership (or not) of property, but they are using a shared capacity to arrive at these conclusions. What's culturally-specific are the premises that make up the rational arguments for or against property ownership, not rationality itself.

Therefore, we can look at the premises that make up the culturally-specific arguments (all internally rational) for or against property ownership, and debate between them.
This is a good point. The rationality of a human mind and the rationality of an idea generated by that mind are two different things. However, we have been discussing the rationality of ideas, not of people. At least I have been.

And the issue at question is not whether a common ground of agreed upon rationality of cultural ideas is achievable. The issue is whether cultural differences extend to something as basic as the judgment that a given idea is rational or irrational. I would say that the history of cultural clashes indicates very strongly that it does.

Within any given culture, rationality will be judged according to what facilitates or interferes with a person operating as a functioning member of the society.

This. People tend to forget that the diagnostic criteria for any mental illness or "insanity" includes a struggle or inability to function in two or more settings (for instance, at work and in relationships).

I'm thinking in only pragmatic terms. If a person chooses to do something to gain a real benefit, and indeed they get that real benefit from the thing, then I do not see how their choice to do that was irrational.

If a real social benefit can be gained by promoting -- even by convincing oneself to believe -- the fiction that vodka is somehow worse to drink than rum, then how is it irrational for people to do that?

Being self-serving =/= irrational. Being dishonest =/= irrational.


When in fact is that rum is worse than vodka. In the hangover stakes at least.

But it wasn't rational enough, because they assumed that just because part of something is poisonous, all of it is.

That makes no sense at all. A belife based on incomplet knowledge is still a belife that has come out of rationality.

No body has yet seen or been able to catch any 'dark matter' at all but still it is a rational hypothesis.

In 20 years time when it has been proved that dark matter does not exist, and new knowledge instead fills in the gaps, would it be true to say that all of those who believed in dark matter 20 years ago were irrational?

I used to plead for renewable energy such as generated by wind farms, solar and the like. I pleaded against dependence on oil. Argued against unbridled consumerism. They called me irrational, bordering on insane. Well, ok, an unrealistic tree hugger at least.
How's that, you say?
Well, that was forty years ago. So what does "irrational", "insane" or even "one culture" really mean?

And thats a bloody good example. 40 years ago, you were seen as irrational and now you seem quite rational to me.:D

Wrong. Humans like to think that they are rational beings when they are actually collections of emotions and passions and have little if anything to do with rationality.

Well really it's a bit of both innit. I mean if humans are not rational then how the hell am I able to communicate with you via this interweb thing sitting here in my office bashing away on my PC keyboard to form charetors that you will be able to make sense of and so dechipher what I am trying to communicate?

That must take some rationality, and the fact that we are born with the ability to learn all of this from others of our species, makes man a very rational animal indeed.

there is one rational way of defining rationality that i know of, and that is simply not stumbling over your own emotional shoe laces.

imitating or resembling others has absolutely noting to do with it, and this notion that it does, is one of those persistent lies that people, irrationally keep telling themselves.

of course its not rational either, to fail to take into account, the kind of incentives our individual priorities (togather with each others, statistically) create. (that IS where most of the conditions we each face and experience ultimately come from. not from our own selves alone, which is why chainging ourselves often seems more futile then it is, but the statistical reality of all of us, all of each of our ways of doing things, added up togather)

so i don't think its entirely rational either, not to care about the kind of world we all have to live in, or the incentives we, all of us, create togather to make it that way, but the main thing, when it comes to defining sanity, and this is something that is observable rather then just what some or most of us might think ought to be, is again, basically really, this not stumbling over our own emotional shoe laces.

by that of course i mean, not letting, not having, blind emotional attatchments, that blind us to how things actually work, that, by which we screw ourselves out of, the kind of world where everyone could find gratification and no ones survival would be stressful or difficult.

When the mind is the way it's supposed to be based on the science that makes the brain and body run and when it runs in a way that is healthy then one is sane. Try taking a health class.

Hahahahaha. Fuckin' great.

Now where is the rational proof for this belife? How do you know how the mind is supposed to be? How is it supposed to be?
How do you know that this defintion of the word 'sane' is correct? Is it correct? What will a health class do for me?

This is a good point. The rationality of a human mind and the rationality of an idea generated by that mind are two different things. However, we have been discussing the rationality of ideas, not of people. At least I have been.

And the issue at question is not whether a common ground of agreed upon rationality of cultural ideas is achievable. The issue is whether cultural differences extend to something as basic as the judgment that a given idea is rational or irrational. I would say that the history of cultural clashes indicates very strongly that it does.


Yes and I certianly agree. Lets take just for the fun of it, the differances in the question of gun ownership between the USA culture and the UK culture.

That right there highlights a massive differance in percived rationality.:D

Bagels make terrible cockrings.

Bagels make terrible cockrings.

Well I don't know, my cockeral quite enjoys a bagel over it's head. It attracts the chicks.

The cultures affect what is CONSIDERED rational or irrational in a person's behavior or thinking.

Well, that's fairly obvious. Haven't I accepted the entire time that people may disagree about these things? Regardless, that has, I'm going to guess, precisely nothing to do with whether or not the behavior is rational. If that, contrary to expectations, was not the point of this entire odyssey, I apologize.

Well, that's fairly obvious. Haven't I accepted the entire time that people may disagree about these things? Regardless, that has, I'm going to guess, precisely nothing to do with whether or not the behavior is rational. If that, contrary to expectations, was not the point of this entire odyssey, I apologize.
It has quite a lot to do with whether the idea IS rational or not, since the judgment of rational or irrational is applied by society/culture. If your idea facilitates your function in society, it -- and by extension, you -- will be deemed rational and treated as such. If it hinders your ability to function in society, it -- and by extension, you -- will be deemed and treated as irrational.

Now, obviously, as society's ideas change, so will how it judges and treats people, but the future does not change the present. If your culture deems your idea nuts now, then you will be the nut of today, even if 100 years after you die in that mental institution, it is discovered you were right all along.

NOTE: I realize you were drawing a distinction between a presumed objective reality and a perceived reality, but when it comes to the actual relationship between individuals and society, I have no interest in imagined, theoretical objectivities. The REALITY of a culture/society believing that something is rational or irrational, and how that affects real people's real lives, is all the objective truth that matters, as far as I'm concerned.

'they called you'

Were you irrational?

'They', yes , the social milieu in general ...
There was no emotional humbug involved. It was pure dry rationalism, I remember.