I disagree with creating a hierarchy of rational levels, as you are suggesting. For one thing, how do you categorize all the beliefs of an individual? How do you rank every single belief in terms of value or usefulness? These are serious obstacles that would stand in the way of the execution of your program.
Moreover, I don’t believe this categorization of perspective serves any real purpose. In fact it seems that many topics lie either “outside” of rationality, or else, they are not really served by a rational analysis. People shouldn’t receive demerits when they choose to differ with some other rational viewpoint, as rationality doesn’t exist as an exclusive, single-interpretation domain. This is why, for example, scientists and philosophers frequently disagree.
Lastly, you seem quite self-flagellating about your belief in God (excuse the double meaning.) This is a little bit unwholesome since you haven’t offered your justification for your beliefs, so we really have no reason or method to agree with you on your self-inspection. The sorts of questions like “Will we accept you,” “Should I be banned”, and so on, are questions that require the barter of arguments, not proclamations. As such, I personally can’t comment on any of that stuff except to say… lay off yourself a little?
I disagree with creating a hierarchy of rational levels, as you are suggesting. For one thing, how do you categorize all the beliefs of an individual? How do you rank every single belief in terms of value or usefulness? These are serious obstacles that would stand in the way of the execution of your program.
At this point, I have no better answer than feeling it out. It makes it a bit wishy-washy, but all I am really trying to do is get a rough estimate of someone’s ability to improve their map.
I agree that it is unfeasible to categorize someone’s every belief and then register their rationality on a scale.
Moreover, I don’t believe this categorization of perspective serves any real purpose. In fact it seems that many topics lie either “outside” of rationality, or else, they are not really served by a rational analysis. People shouldn’t receive demerits when they choose to differ with some other rational viewpoint, as rationality doesn’t exist as an exclusive, single-interpretation domain. This is why, for example, scientists and philosophers frequently disagree.
I think I expect more from rationality than you do. I don’t think any topic lies outside of the map/territory analogy. Whether we possess the ability to gather evidence from some areas of the territory is a debate worth having. Somewhere in here is the mantra, “Drawing on the map does not affect the territory.” I cannot come up with some beliefs and then argue vehemently that there must be territory to go along with it.
I expect studying inaccessible territories to be much like how they discovered extra planets in the solar system. Even if we cannot go there ourselves, we can still figure out that something is there.
Lastly, you seem quite self-flagellating about your belief in God (excuse the double meaning.) This is a little bit unwholesome since you haven’t offered your justification for your beliefs, so we really have no reason or method to agree with you on your self-inspection. The sorts of questions like “Will we accept you,” “Should I be banned”, and so on, are questions that require the barter of arguments, not proclamations. As such, I personally can’t comment on any of that stuff except to say… lay off yourself a little?
Fair enough. I was trying to accomplish two things with this post and I tried using the flagellating to help people see the other point. It seems to have mixed success.
I disagree with creating a hierarchy of rational levels, as you are suggesting. For one thing, how do you categorize all the beliefs of an individual? How do you rank every single belief in terms of value or usefulness? These are serious obstacles that would stand in the way of the execution of your program.
Moreover, I don’t believe this categorization of perspective serves any real purpose. In fact it seems that many topics lie either “outside” of rationality, or else, they are not really served by a rational analysis. People shouldn’t receive demerits when they choose to differ with some other rational viewpoint, as rationality doesn’t exist as an exclusive, single-interpretation domain. This is why, for example, scientists and philosophers frequently disagree.
Lastly, you seem quite self-flagellating about your belief in God (excuse the double meaning.) This is a little bit unwholesome since you haven’t offered your justification for your beliefs, so we really have no reason or method to agree with you on your self-inspection. The sorts of questions like “Will we accept you,” “Should I be banned”, and so on, are questions that require the barter of arguments, not proclamations. As such, I personally can’t comment on any of that stuff except to say… lay off yourself a little?
At this point, I have no better answer than feeling it out. It makes it a bit wishy-washy, but all I am really trying to do is get a rough estimate of someone’s ability to improve their map.
I agree that it is unfeasible to categorize someone’s every belief and then register their rationality on a scale.
I think I expect more from rationality than you do. I don’t think any topic lies outside of the map/territory analogy. Whether we possess the ability to gather evidence from some areas of the territory is a debate worth having. Somewhere in here is the mantra, “Drawing on the map does not affect the territory.” I cannot come up with some beliefs and then argue vehemently that there must be territory to go along with it.
I expect studying inaccessible territories to be much like how they discovered extra planets in the solar system. Even if we cannot go there ourselves, we can still figure out that something is there.
Fair enough. I was trying to accomplish two things with this post and I tried using the flagellating to help people see the other point. It seems to have mixed success.