This should be locked. A) Your examples are weak at best. Logically you go the safe route. Or, when you take the fast route you go carefully. There's nothing rational or irrational about it. Likewise you go with the girl you prefer, there's no rationality to it. B) Both words have been defined. You cannot compare things like that. You could however, compare a pear and an apple, because there's different opinions. C) You have no stance.
A). I would agree with. They are ill defined. More on this later.
B). It is true that both words have a definition, but if he presents an argument on the order of showing that the actual meaning of the words shows some other meaning, or implies something strange, then that doesn't matter.
C). He does in fact have a stance; that rationality and logic are not the same thing.
Shocko, while your input is generally appreciated, you don't need to go around declaring which topics should be locked and which ones shouldn't be. Besides, I'd rather give something a chance if it seems like it could develop into something substantiative, even if at first glance it appears trivial, so long as it conforms to the rules of SD and isn't
utterly ridiculous.
Quote from name:Dark_Marine
The last post should be deleted. A) You're suppost to report, not backseat moderate He cant report with his silly gadget. B) You're off topic. Logicly one would avoid a topic about logic due rational reasons, Its obvously a longer road to read a post about something you think you know, then to avoid it. But rational people would explain why logic lacks reasoning.
A). He can PM however.
B). B
was on topic.
And just as with Shocko above, Dark_Marine, your input is appreciated, but unless you're going to actually report a post for a valid reason, you don't need to go around saying what should and shouldn't be deleted.
For me, there is a clear difference between the two, one being completely objective whereas the other is subjective and based on impulses.
Well, for us, it may not be so clear. Which one is subjective to impulses and which one is completely objective?
@ Example 1:
Logically, the shortcut would only be the best route to use if your objective is soley to cross the road in the shortest amount of time, excluding all other factors. If your objective becomes to both cross the road as fast as possible AND cross it without dying/becoming maimed/injured, then the logic of the situation changes. Fear is not merely a state of mind, it is also a rational function in the process of using logic to determine the best outcome. The rationalization process becomes more about creating the premsies for the logic to use. When you look at the two paths, you rationalize them and say or conceive in some manner:
"Well, path A is much shorter but I could get smashed by that boulder on that cliff there. Or, I could take more time to go along path B and be safer." However, typically the rationalization does not end there. You may also say to yourself "I value my life much more than the few seconds extra it will take me to go along path B" or "The boulder MAY fall, but based on the rocks around it, it seems very unlikely." Or perhaps "I need to get across here as fast as possible because I'm being chased by a tiger and will be eaten if I don't outrun it." (Assuming you have enough of a headstart on it to be able to, of course.)
When logic intercedes, it takes the premises created by the rationalization of the situation and draws a conclusion. Here is one set of possible premises drawn from a possible situation:
Rationalization: I am being chased by a tiger
Rationalization: Path A will get me to safety faster
Rationalization: Path B will get me to safety slower
Rationalization: Path A is more dangerous
Then logic takes over
Logic: Since I am being chased by a tiger, I am already in danger
Logic: Since I am being chased by a tiger, I need to get to safety as fast as possible
Logic: Since A will get me to safety faster, I should probably take path A
Logic: Path A is also more dangerous, but I am willing to risk it because I am being chased by a tiger
And so the participant chooses path A. Take another example with slightly different rationalizations
Rationalization: I am being chased by a tiger
Rationalization: Path A will get me to safety faster
Rationalization: Path B will get me to safety slower
Rationalization: Path A is very dangerous
Then logic takes over
Logic: Since I am being chased by a tiger, I am already in danger
Logic: Since I am being chased by a tiger, I need to get to safety as fast as possible
Logic: Since A will get me to safety faster, I should probably take path A
Logic: Since Path A is so dangerous, I am less likely to survive by taking path A, even though I am being chased by a tiger
Logic: I have a better chance of survival along path B, so I will take path B
In these cases, the function of the tiger makes the time factor much more urgent. In a case without the urgency, (or as in the second example where Path A is so dangerous that its not worth it) the logic will conclude that path B is the better choice.
Really what it boils down to, is that you are trying to separate functions pertaining to psychology and functions pertaining to reality. However, IN reality, the functions of psychology are also a function of reality, so they become the same thing really, or you could choose to say based on the examples above that they are two parts of the same "deciding" or "conclusion" function.
Logic is never subject to psychology, else it isn't logic. Rationalization may be affected by psychology or the just based on the individual in question. For example, in the same situation two different people may choose two different paths because their brains assess the danger of the boulder on the cliff differently.
I think your discrepancy may come from this:
Quote from name:
">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rationalization]Usage note:
Although rationalize retains its principal 19th-century senses “to make conformable to reason” and “to treat in a rational manner,” 20th-century psychology has given it the now more common meaning “to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that seem reasonable but actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious causes.” Although the possibility of ambiguity exists, the context will usually make clear which sense is intended.
Psychology has distorted the true meaning of rationalization.
If this is the root of your discrepancy, then you really have no argument to make, since you're simply referring to two different and unrelated definitions of the word. (Well, they're related but only in a manner such that they can be used independantly to mean two separate things.
None.
What if my rationality favours for going to the fast route, and my logic favours going to the fast route? Then what?
None.
LogicalLogicRationalityRationalIt's not one or the other. Logic decides what needs be done, then you can do it rationally, or not.
I.E: Logically we need to kill the massive consumption of food. We act rational and promote health, as opposed to denying fat people food.
None.
What if my rationality favours for going to the fast route, and my logic favours going to the fast route? Then what?
Vi3t, what are you talking about exactly? You haven't presented any argument, contradiction, observation, or anything at all by saying this. So what if your rationality and logic agree? Is there some point to that? Don't post silly crap like this unless you're going to explain it.
It's not one or the other. Logic decides what needs be done, then you can do it rationally, or not.
I.E: Logically we need to kill the massive consumption of food. We act rational and promote health, as opposed to denying fat people food.
This is actually another good illustration of what I was talking about. Slightly different from what you said though, logically it is a valid conclusion to deny fat people food, and as such it would be rational to act upon that if the only given premise from rationalizing the situation is reducing the food consumption. However, if we take as an objective equality and morality, and rationalize that there is a probalem with food consumption, then the logic no longer returns denying fat people food as valid, because it contradicts the morality premise.
Here are the two situations:
Rationalization: There is too much food consumption
Logic: To reduce food consumption, we can reduce the supply of food, we can deny food to people, we can promote lifestyles with reduced food consumption (ect...)
Second situation:
Rationalization: There is too much food consumption
Rationalization2: Certain acts are immoral
Logic: We need to act in such a way as to both reduce consumption and be moral, so certain actions are not valid. We strike down those actions which cannot fulfill both conditions by appealing to our moral directives and are left with promoting healthy lifestyles as the only option
Of course, the actual case is much more complex, and includes stuff like enacting laws, angry farmers, balancing the benefits of regulation with basic rights, ect.
An easy way to view my explaination of rationalizing and logic is with simple mathmatical equalities: A + B + C + D = E. We rationalize a situation, which gives us A, B, C, and D, then logic is the operator that puts them together to give us the conclusion E. It just happens that in reality the case becomes not a simple addition problem, but something more like (((AB)^(1/2))/(DE')*(C^3)+BCA)/(SQRT(EAD)) = Q or something nasty and complex like that.
None.
I wasn't arguing you vrael. It's just Havok was arguing that they are opposites. When logic is what decides your course of action, and rationality decides how you go about it. Mistakes are usually made when you start being irrational and stop being logical.
Also, It's not logical to cut down food supply ever. Not sure if you're aware, but fresh meat and vegetables have a very short life.
Point is, where can this go? All he wants are examples. There's no grounds for debate. Null wont care either...
None.
Also, It's not logical to cut down food supply ever. Not sure if you're aware, but fresh meat and vegetables have a very short life.
Right, because its not called rationing in army and cutoff situations, is it not logical to eat one mean a day for 3weeks than eating three meals a day for a 1 week? sure you wont fight very well but youll survive death by hunger.
None.
Also, It's not logical to cut down food supply ever. Not sure if you're aware, but fresh meat and vegetables have a very short life.
For clarification purposes, the supply comes from suppliers. You never want to lose supply of food, ever. Rationing occurs when there's a low supply over a larger distribution for extensive periods of time.
GG methinks.
None.
For clarification purposes, the supply comes from suppliers. You never want to lose supply of food, ever. Rationing occurs when there's a low supply over a larger distribution for extensive periods of time.
GG methinks.
so what youre saying is you never want to lose supply of food. How does that apply to logic OR rational?
It's not logical to cut down food supply ever.
It IS logical to cut down food
supplied to soldiers when it is running low.
it IS logical to cut down food supply when you're trying to make something suffer.
None.
For clarification purposes, the supply comes from suppliers. You never want to lose supply of food, ever. Rationing occurs when there's a low supply over a larger distribution for extensive periods of time. GG methinks.
so what youre saying is you never want to lose supply of food. How does that apply to logic OR rational?
I think he's taking additional premises to draw his conclusion from, as illustrated below:
If the only premise is to cut the consumption of food to a population, then decreasing the supply of food follows as a logical course of action.
However, when you take additional premises, say, that reducing the food supply may have negative economic benefits, then of course such an action does not follow because you take your objective to be both reducing consumption AND having a good economy.
This means that logic is local to the premises given it. What is logical in one situation may not be logical in the second situation, and as such if you are given a logical outcome you can probably infer the rationalized premises from that. So, I can infer that since Shocko does not find reducing the food supply to be logcial, he must be taking some premise that makes such an action invalid. Likewise for Lt.Church's statements "It IS logical to cut down food supplied to soldiers when it is running low." we can infer that the premises you are using result in reducing the food supply to be valid, and since Shocko finds that conclusion invalid and Lt. Church finds it valid, you two aren't in fact arguing about the same thing. You are arguing about two different situations, since your premises are different.
I find this is an inherent problem in many arguments, that folks don't know that they're really arguing over nothing, since their arguments only apply to their respective circumstances. If the precise circumstances were made clear, there probably wouldn't be any argument at all between two rational people, since real logic is unaffected by an individual. However, it should be noted that premises can not be logically determined themselves, unless such a premise is the result of lower order premises. Logic also says nothing about the validity of such premises, unless the logic is a result of other premises which in some way relate to the first set.
None.
In a wartime scenario where food supply is short, it's logical to ration so that soldiers have the required energy. That's not lowering food supply, it's changing distribution.
In our current state of living, food supply isn't the problem. It's food cosumption that we are troubled with. Lowering food supply will likely increase prices and lead homelessness / malnutrition. Promoting a healthy lifestyle would cost money for campaigns, but that's not money us working class have to worry about.
So the goal is to lower food consumption. We have people that eat too much, and people that don't eat enough. We have to target over consumption, not under. So lowering supply would be illogical. A common trait amongst over consumption is obesity. It's logical to promote a healthy diet. Now we have to reason with it. Do we kill income by refusing them service? It doesn't sound logical at all. Do we force healthier food into daily consumption? Sounds good. So the logical outcome is to make healthier option.
I fail to see rationalization having anything to do with logic. Except if you are irrational, you aren't being logical; if you are rational, you are thinking logically.
It's not one versus the other...
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 1 2009, 7:36 pm by Mini Moose 2707.
None.
I agree with Vrael (the points that have been made and how I understand them).
In a wartime scenario where food supply is short, it's logical to ration so that soldiers have the required energy. That's not lowering food supply, it's changing distribution.
In our current state of living, food supply isn't the problem. It's food cosumption that we are troubled with. Lowering food supply will likely increase prices and lead homelessness / malnutrition. Promoting a healthy lifestyle would cost money for campaigns, but that's not money us working class have to worry about.
I don't think he's arguing the specifics of rationing (or changing food distribution). The cost benefit analysis of that will be for another debate. I assume he is merely pointing out the effects of additional premises on a logical approach for a given example.
So the goal is to lower food consumption. We have people that eat too much, and people that don't eat enough. We have to target over consumption, not under. So lowering supply would be illogical. A common trait amongst over consumption is obesity. It's logical to promote a healthy diet. Now we have to reason with it. Do we kill income by refusing them service? It doesn't sound logical at all. Do we force healthier food into daily consumption? Sounds good. So the logical outcome is to make healthier option.
Again you're missing the point. He is not supporting the rationing of food supply, but instead using it as an example for the sake of illustrating an argument.
Even though you have subconsciously defended his model (which I'll elaborate on).
Your proposal on lowering food consumption follows this model-
In short:
There is a goal (goal).
There are practical (whether real or perceived) methods to accomplish this goal (proposition).
There are conditions which acts are the premise to rule out unfavoured methods (rationalisation)
There is the final judgement (logic).
The goal is fixed. In theory, there are infinite propositions. There are finite conditions. Therefore there are finite logical options. Something is deemed logical or not (in this sense) based on whether it follows the criteria of rationalisation. The final judgement is not so much the action itself, but really the assessment of the action whether it accomplishes the goal based on the premises.
I fail to see rationalization having anything to do with logic. Except if you are irrational, you aren't being logical; if you are rational, you are thinking logically.
It's not one versus the other...
Rationalising and logic are separate but not independent.
The way I understand it, something is only logical based on the rationalising. Something is illogical if it doesn't comply with the rationaliing. Something is irrational when it does not comply with another set of criteria that assess to rationing. It means that the the rationalising (like logic) are bound by another set of criteria. These could be more tangible, like the presence of tangible environmental factors as opposed to thoughts (and emotions) which are intangible.
None.
Back to forum
Please
log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
