Drawing a new distinction is one way to make intellectual progress. "We've been treating all these things the same way, but this lot is significantly different from that lot." (This is a type of ontological remodeling.)
-
-
Whether the stuff I label "meta-rationality" should be included within "rationality" is just a choice of terminology. Such choices are neither true nor false. They can have consequences, though.
Show this thread -
Previous theories of rationality ("rationalisms") do not even attempt to explain the stuff I call "meta-rational." An extended theory might, but restricting the use of "rational" to not include meta-rational stuff draws attention to this shortcoming.
Show this thread -
Introducing the new term "meta-rational" (1) draws attention to important, mostly-overlooked aspects of technical practice and (2) points out that existing theories do not explain them. That brings the adequacy of rationalisms into question more broadly.
Show this thread -
Strong, angry pushback against the concept of meta-rationality seems to stem from taking rationality as a Holy Ultimate. There can't be anything beyond rationality, because that would call into question its promises of salvation. Interesting, isn't it?
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.