There is a pervasive pattern of discussion about “rationalism” versus “post-rationalism” versus “meta-rationalism” and various other ways of trying to carve reasoning up into movements or communities or ideologies. This is all a mistake.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @RealtimeAI
I may be able to help clarify this (cc
@AE_Robbert@cognazor). This post distinguishes three sorts of critiques of rationalism: irrational ones, anti-rational ones, and meta-rational ones. Their grounds and types of reasoning are all quite different.https://meaningness.com/metablog/rationalism-critiques …3 replies 0 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @RealtimeAI and
David Chapman Retweeted Matt Guttman
“Post-rational” was the slogan of some members of the Berkeley/LW “rationalist” subculture who were disenchanted with some aspects of it. I was never part of that, and only address it in passing. My critique addresses much more mainstream ideas.https://twitter.com/RealtimeAI/status/1158425139421360129 …
David Chapman added,
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @RealtimeAI and
“Meta-rationality” is a term I coined for a particular type of reasoning. This type of reasoning would count as rational by the definition “likely to be effective.” It does not reject rationality. It is, however, quite *different from* formal/technical/systematic rationality.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @RealtimeAI and
My most concise explanation of what “meta-rationality” means, and how it relates to “rationality” (as I use that word), is here: https://meaningness.com/eggplant/terms#rationalism …pic.twitter.com/TvBOrrIM5I
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Ya. I find this to just be academic expansion. I don’t find these extra words more precise. They take an idea that is fairly simple and make it seem complex by trying to analyze it into parts. But it is simple.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
“Thinking well” is, unfortunately, not simple or well-defined. (Assuming that is simple and well-defined is exactly the rationalist failure mode.) Figuring out how to think better requires making many additional distinctions, imo. This is one of them.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Having reasons for what one thinks. I like Deutsch’s good explanations. Although that runs into similar problems. The bottom level flaw is the idea that we can always keep stacking definitions and it will help. I now consider that idea irrational.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
People who are totally clueless (homeopaths e.g.) have reasons for what they think. They are not rational (in most senses of that word; there are exceptions).
-
-
Yep. If we use reason with them, you or I would prob pretty quickly find the point where their reasons would be irrational. We would both point and say “That is a bad reason to think that. It is irrational.”
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.