I’d rephrase this to emphasize the nonboolean nature of belief: an aspiring rationalist should seek to make his degree of belief in a proposition correspond to the strength of the evidence. It is also an error to have excessive confidence in a proposition that is most likely true.
I guess you are implying that using fuzzy logic can be considered rational.
I think that it means also being compliant with the inference rules
On a colloquial tone it might mean that it has the expected result a certain process
But I think it is irrational to try to be completely rational given that there is still a lot we do not know, therefore obscure/weird things appear/happen.
I’d rephrase this to emphasize the nonboolean nature of belief: an aspiring rationalist should seek to make his degree of belief in a proposition correspond to the strength of the evidence. It is also an error to have excessive confidence in a proposition that is most likely true.
I guess you are implying that using fuzzy logic can be considered rational.
I think that it means also being compliant with the inference rules
On a colloquial tone it might mean that it has the expected result a certain process
But I think it is irrational to try to be completely rational given that there is still a lot we do not know, therefore obscure/weird things appear/happen.