Rationally proving rationality

[Perhaps]

"Is that code for "I can't actually defend this proposition"?"

Yes. It isn't my position to defend. I was given this statement which I had trouble refuting, thus I posted it in here and asked for other's opinions. You can call your position any word you wish, and once again, I appreciate you sharing it. I was giving refutations simply to promote discussion, not to stir up emotions (which I seem to have done). If you disagree then that's fine, if you stated why you disagree then that's all I asked for. I'm not here to come to a conclusion, although you may be.

And no, 'poisoning the well' does not mean anything to me. What is it referring to?

If you think the topic is worthless unless it has an end goal then you can feel free to stop replying. The information you've given has been very helpful in giving me insight into the proper stance on the issue.

---

"I disagree. According to your definition all I have to do is use some observations to come to an answer. So here goes: rationality is rational because it seems to work pretty fucking well."

I now understand that you are rationally proving rationality. I'm sorry I didn't catch on to that earlier, just read it wrong. However, how can you say that it works 'pretty fucking well'? Is it because it helps us analyze the world around us and form deductive conclusions based on observations thus giving us knowledge?

Can you say that there is no other thought process which would provide us this same ability, but perhaps different deductive conclusions based on observations and giving us different knowledge? Simply a question, perhaps the answer is yes.