One can have this as a criterion. He can have it as a criterion. He can make that demand or have that as a thought experiment. And there is a modicum of fairness, or one could say analytical usefulness in this criterion, since many people act like: they know the right answer, they can justify it such that a rational person should be convinced, and thus if someone does not agree they are irrational. People do exist who function like this, and most of us have moments where we do. So I get the criterion. But it is also a ridiculous criterion. In the above I am trying to be as respectful as possible to his criterion, since it does not appear in a vaccuum. People do act like this, assume it to be a reasonable criterion.
Problems abound with it of course. Right off the bat we have the implicit binary nature of it. Rational people in group A, irrational people in group B. But, of course, humans are not like this. They are rational in some situations and not others, regarding some topics and not others (and that’s with pretty much any definition of ‘rational’. Further rationality is itself not easy to demonstrate. IOW page 24 of whichever Kant book you choose should, you would think qualify as rational. I mean the guy was brilliant, he was a pro. He worked fucking hard on that page. But still it may very well have irrational elements. From cultural assumptions, from language, from his own idiosyncrasies. From error.
The problem with rational as a category is also here. Could two equally informed people both be rational and reach different conclusions on the same conclusion`? Yes. Especially if they have different experiences - though one could say that means they have different information. But then, we always have different information. Rationality is an approach. Generally means working with deduction and empirical evidence. It is an approach. But we use rationality as a value laden term. It tends to mean good thinking. Which is silly, since it is an approach and one that can obviously reach false conclusions. Extremely rational, well informed people have used lovely deduction and come to wrong conclusions.
This conflation of 'rationality´as meaning thinking that follows whatever one considers the correct epistemology and the meaning of being correct, is a mistake. Rational thinking and rational thinkers can reach false conclusions. Even when they are being very rational, no fallacies that day.
The criterion is actually vague, falsely binary and almost meaningless.
And unlikely ever to be met. It certainly has never been met on any topic, even on either side of the is ought divide.
Yes, exactly. It sounds like an objective measurement. And I suppose it could be. We could set Phyllo loose on a huge statistical sample of people judged rational. But if he seems nervous, some might just not be convinced even if Phyllos logic and assumptions were spot on. And some of them might be having a bad day. And of course, cognitive dissonence related to issues that are emotionally charged could get in the way. One would think that someone with a belief system founded on dasein would think it was a ridiculous criterion.
We could give Iamb the benefit of the doubt and say: well, that’s his point. You can’t convince everyone. Fine, but then one must never conflate this criterion with a good judge of the truth.
An inability to convince huge numbers of people of something should never be conflated with not being right. ONe can be right and not be able to convince a single person.
And at least in practical terms, I have experienced this. IOW my continued belief in my own conclusion about what happened date X at 3pm, is working for me, has even helped me, despite the fact that I cannot prove that my sense of what happened is correct to a single human. And this would be about things on the is side of the is ought divide.