(July 28, 2009 at 6:10 am)Tiberius Wrote: What exactly is irrational about bringing the FSM into an argument if the point of the FSM was to show that you cannot disprove its existence anymore than another god?
Quote:It is believed by some philosophers (notably A.C. Grayling) and experts, that a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias.
It is quite evident from modern cognitive science and neuroscience, studying the role of emotion in mental function (including topics ranging from flashes of scientific insight to making future plans), that no human has ever satisfied this criterion, except perhaps a complete psychopath with a massively damaged amygdala.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality
It's irrational because while the FSM quite clearly exists, the debater's reason was comprimised by personal bias. This bias is materialism, monism or physicalism.
But I don't give a shit about being rational, who wants to join the Borg collective anyway? Reality is irrational.
