Rationally proving rationality

[Norfolk And Chance]

You might as well say how can we KNOW anything?

Rational thought is simply a tag we put on the type of thinking that considers facts, evidence and reason. It is clearly the most objective way to think, rather than basing everything on unevidenced belief.

Put it another way, if we can define the parameters of what "rational" is and devise a thought experiment and ask a group of people to rationally think about a conceptual question and give a probable answer to that question, then you might expect more than a random percentage to come up with a similar answer - if this test was repeatable with predictably similar results then you could say that you were thus proving the validity and dependability of critical or rational thinking.

[reverendjeremiah]

You might as well say how can we KNOW anything?

More like "How can we know that what we know is fact?"

Rational thought is simply a tag we put on the type of thinking that considers facts, evidence and reason. It is clearly the most objective way to think, rather than basing everything on unevidenced belief.

I agree it is the best choice, and I dont think he is trying to suggest that. What he is asking is how can we 100% be certain that it is factual.

Put it another way, if we can define the parameters of what "rational" is and devise a thought experiment and ask a group of people to rationally think about a conceptual question and give a probable answer to that question, then you might expect more than a random percentage to come up with a similar answer - if this test was repeatable with predictably similar results then you could say that you were thus proving the validity and dependability of critical or rational thinking.

Good point.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I agree it is the best choice, and I dont think he is trying to suggest that. What he is asking is how can we 100% be certain that it is factual.

I assume a rational thinker would base their thinking on facts, therefore making that line of thinking factual? Surely the conclusions of a bunch of different people all thinkng rationally, if they are the same then that confirms the validity of rational thinking? We already have it of course, with the scientific peer review process.

[genkaus]

"...Even rationality is grounded in a leap of intutition. There is no way to rationally prove that rationallity is a good way to look at the world. We intue it - that it is very helpful. And as we know, according to Pascal, the end point of rationallity is to demonstrate the limits to rationality."

The refutation lies in the meaning of the word rationality. Rationality is exercise of reason and reason is based on identification of reality. The world is a part of reality. Thus, rationality is not just a "good" way of looking at the world, it is the "only" to actually look at it. To see the world without rationality is like looking at something without actually looking at it - its self-contradictory.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I just noticed a fallacy in the original quote there - which states "Even rationality is grounded in a leap of intuition."

Is it? Says who?

Like you say it is an exeicise of reason and reason is based on identification of reality. And reality, what is real, is based on facts and testable, repeatable evidence.

[Perhaps]

"The refutation lies in the meaning of the word rationality. Rationality is exercise of reason and reason is based on identification of reality. The world is a part of reality. Thus, rationality is not just a "good" way of looking at the world, it is the "only" to actually look at it. To see the world without rationality is like looking at something without actually looking at it - its self-contradictory."

- By using this refutation you avoid the original premise of the statement, "There is no way to rationally prove that rationality is the best way to look at the world. We intue it...". It is most true that rationality is the exercise of reason which is based on the identification of reality. This, however, does not refute the statement.

The point of the statement is to show the audience that rationality is intued to be the best (and effectively the only) method of thought. If you take away the intuition that it is the only way to look at the world then you allow critical analysis and evaluation upon the topic. Once this occurs you may attempt to use rationality - the exercise of reason - in order to prove that rationality is the best way to look at the world.

One, such as yourself, could reasonably infer that rationality is the only method of thought through which to view the world as it pertains to reality, and as you say: "To see the world without rationality is like looking at something without actually looking at it...". But what must be realized is that you intued that conclusion. If you analyze why it was reasonable for you to infer that rationality is the only method through which to view the world you are forced to use explanations prosteriori (derived from observed facts). And as was stated earlier, all things are equal and all facts are a posteriori, we have nothing more than competing claims based on its functionalism or pragmatic value. This introduces subjectivity of fact into the discussion and effectively limits your ability to infer an objective conclusion.

Once again I will state what I said earlier. If you want to make a claim about the superiority of a value system or in the least a way of thinking, you seek to make a claim that is outside the closed system - which really has no rational basis for support of it. Rationality is a good way of thinking in a closed system nature, not the only way, and it is certainly not able to be called the best way, for one does not have a rational basis to support the claim of superiority.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"I just noticed a fallacy in the original quote there - which states "Even rationality is grounded in a leap of intuition."
Is it? Says who?
Like you say it is an exeicise of reason and reason is based on identification of reality. And reality, what is real, is based on facts and testable, repeatable evidence."

- How can you prove that reason is based on identification of reality? or that reality is based on facts and testable, repeatable evidence? One must find an origin for what is considered factual statements. That origin is intuition. This intuition allows rationality which allows reason which allows facts which allows reality (as we know it).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Guys, I by no means am saying that I know the correct refutation/concession to the statement I provided. I do honestly appreciate all the thought you have put into this, and I want to make clear that I am only playing devil's advocate with my counter refutations. Your input has helped me greatly in further understanding my stance on the subject.

---

"I assume a rational thinker would base their thinking on facts, therefore making that line of thinking factual?..."

- Yes, that makes sense. The perception of fact however is confirmed by reason which is confirmed by rationality which is ultimately intued.

"...Surely the conclusions of a bunch of different people all thinkng rationally, if they are the same then that confirms the validity of rational thinking?..."

- Once again, the same could be said about any type of thought. Just because it 'proves' itself doesn't mean it's the best or most objective. I could easily exchange the words rationally with irrationally and rational with irrational into the same quote and it works perfectly.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Once again, who made the statement and from what authority?

As far as I am concerned it is just a blokes opinion and doesn't necessarily need refuting because who says he is correct? The statement could be from an idiot with no credibility, babbling on.

The only argument can surely be over what constitutes rational thought.

[Mister Agenda]

Rational thought is useful, which I know from experience. If you want more of an epistemological basis than that for preferring rational thought, you're being greedy.

[genkaus]

- By using this refutation you avoid the original premise of the statement, "There is no way to rationally prove that rationality is the best way to look at the world. We intue it...". It is most true that rationality is the exercise of reason which is based on the identification of reality. This, however, does not refute the statement.

You haven't made an argument. You have simply made a claim. Let's examine that claim a little.

According to you, it is out intuition that tells us that rationality is the best way to look at reality.
Rationality means using reason to gain knowledge.
Intuition means knowledge gained without use of reason.

By definition, these two are opposites. In effect, your statement becomes "There is no reason to think that using reason is the best way to gain knowledge about this world. But that is something we just know." However, even if just one good reason to use rationality as a tool for knowing the world is provided, that is ample refutation for this statement. If the premise of an argument is refuted, the rest of it falls apart automatically.

The point of the statement is to show the audience that rationality is intued to be the best (and effectively the only) method of thought. If you take away the intuition that it is the only way to look at the world then you allow critical analysis and evaluation upon the topic. Once this occurs you may attempt to use rationality - the exercise of reason - in order to prove that rationality is the best way to look at the world.

Fair enough. Critical analysis and evaluation of the topic is always welcome.

One, such as yourself, could reasonably infer that rationality is the only method of thought through which to view the world as it pertains to reality, and as you say: "To see the world without rationality is like looking at something without actually looking at it...". But what must be realized is that you intued that conclusion. If you analyze why it was reasonable for you to infer that rationality is the only method through which to view the world you are forced to use explanations prosteriori (derived from observed facts). And as was stated earlier, all things are equal and all facts are a posteriori, we have nothing more than competing claims based on its functionalism or pragmatic value. This introduces subjectivity of fact into the discussion and effectively limits your ability to infer an objective conclusion.

You'll have to explain the bolded part a little better, since it makes no sense to me. And in the end - facts can't be subjective. They are objective by nature.

However, from what I see here, your position is based on a false dichotomy. According to you, the only way to gain any knowledge is either by rationality or by intuition, i.e. either by using reason or without reason. That much is correct. However, then you equate using reason to deriving knowledge form observation. "Use explanations prosteriori (derived from observed facts)". That is incorrect.

You are ignoring something called axiomatic truths. These axioms - such as axiom of existence and axiom of identity - are not known deductively or intuitively. Rather they are discovered to be the basis of reason and knowledge. These are prerequisites for reason, therefore, reason cannot be used to prove them. But they are not known automatically either, since they are discovered when one considers what is required for reason to be valid.

The only way to show their validity, is by showing that even a statement negating those axioms assumes them to be true. For example, if you claim "There is no knowledge", you are claiming to know something. These facts are not known intuitively, since they can be discovered, using reason, as the starting point of reason and by discovering that without them being, words such as reason, knowledge, truth and facts are all meaningless.

Once again I will state what I said earlier. If you want to make a claim about the superiority of a value system or in the least a way of thinking, you seek to make a claim that is outside the closed system - which really has no rational basis for support of it. Rationality is a good way of thinking in a closed system nature, not the only way, and it is certainly not able to be called the best way, for one does not have a rational basis to support the claim of superiority.

If you are "thinking", you are trying to use reason. You may make assumptions without thought (the so-called "intuitive knowledge"), but you cannot think without reasoning.

How can you prove that reason is based on identification of reality?

Isn't that tautological?

or that reality is based on facts and testable, repeatable evidence?

Its the other way around. Facts and evidence are based on reality.

One must find an origin for what is considered factual statements.

The origin is the axiomatic statements that form the basis of all knowledge.

That origin is intuition. This intuition allows rationality which allows reason which allows facts which allows reality (as we know it).

No. Intuition implies that it is known automatically. These axioms are discovered when one finds that without them, no knowledge is possible.

Once again, the same could be said about any type of thought. Just because it 'proves' itself doesn't mean it's the best or most objective. I could easily exchange the words rationally with irrationally and rational with irrational into the same quote and it works perfectly.

Okay, this part makes no sense. For something to be the best there must be some objective standard to measure it by. If we are talking about this world here, the standard would be correspondence to reality.
The term "most objective" is similarly senseless. Something is objective if it is based on reality and independent of a person's mind. Something that is objective, like rationality, is automatically the best way to gain knowledge about reality.

---

I just noticed a fallacy in the original quote there - which states "Even rationality is grounded in a leap of intuition."

Is it? Says who?

Like you say it is an exeicise of reason and reason is based on identification of reality. And reality, what is real, is based on facts and testable, repeatable evidence.

I think the "leap of intuition" being referred to here is "How do you know that reality is real?"

Since whatever reason you can give for reality being real would be based on reality itself, the reason would become invalid if reality itself becomes invalid.

Two considerations are missing here. First, "what is real is real" is a tautological statement, something that is true by definition. Any negation of this statement, such as "Reality is an illusion", is basically self-contradictory. Second, this statement forms the basis of all knowledge. So to say that this statement is "known" either by reason or intuition, is meaningless. This statement is assumed to be true for knowledge to be possible.

[Perhaps]

- By using this refutation you avoid the original premise of the statement, "There is no way to rationally prove that rationality is the best way to look at the world. We intue it...". It is most true that rationality is the exercise of reason which is based on the identification of reality. This, however, does not refute the statement.

You haven't made an argument. You have simply made a claim. Let's examine that claim a little.

According to you, it is out intuition that tells us that rationality is the best way to look at reality.
Rationality means using reason to gain knowledge.
Intuition means knowledge gained without use of reason.

By definition, these two are opposites. In effect, your statement becomes "There is no reason to think that using reason is the best way to gain knowledge about this world. But that is something we just know." However, even if just one good reason to use rationality as a tool for knowing the world is provided, that is ample refutation for this statement. If the premise of an argument is refuted, the rest of it falls apart automatically.

I think the basic argument of the statement is that it is intued, which would mean that you need to refute that aspect and not the fact that you can personally justify reasons why reason is the best way to gain knowledge.

Your opinions on the axioms of truth are very interesting, and probably true. Like I said before, I don't know the answer, I'm just playing devil's advocate.