tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post364696833183407405..comments2024-03-28T19:14:33.619-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: Why Moral and Philosophical Disagreements Are Especially Fertile Grounds for Rationalization (with Jon Ellis)Eric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-1771835601880967002018-03-02T11:40:00.930-08:002018-03-02T11:40:00.930-08:00Callan -- Jon and I define it in the pejorative wa...Callan -- Jon and I define it in the pejorative way, so that by definition it is never reasonable. There are also non-pejorative uses in some of the philosophical literature, eg. Donald Davidson.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274774112862434865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-83396184151255769472018-03-01T18:51:19.383-08:002018-03-01T18:51:19.383-08:00I don't understand the use of 'rationalisa...I don't understand the use of 'rationalisation' if somehow there can be 'reasonable rationalisations', Eric? It kind of comes off as 'reasonable unreasonables'?Callan S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-52565468427466028492018-02-28T08:25:10.896-08:002018-02-28T08:25:10.896-08:00Hi Alan and Callan! Alan, in our fuller expositio...Hi Alan and Callan! Alan, in our fuller exposition, we define rationalization is epistemically pejorative way as "biased" reasoning that aims to justify conclusions we are attracted to for "epistemically irrelevant" reasons. So the kind of cases that you're thinking of wouldn't count as "rationalization" in our pejorative sense. We agree that it can be reasonable to search for grounds to justify a warranted intuitive judgment -- and in fact philosophy often proceeds this way.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274774112862434865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-33059805481634625022018-02-28T08:19:11.981-08:002018-02-28T08:19:11.981-08:00Russell's teapot is an example of an assertion...Russell's teapot is an example of an assertion that can't be falsified, meaning that there are no warrants of the teapot's existence that might be tested. The ways that beliefs might be rationalized are many, but I note that the traditional ways use ideological thinking and usually lead to what seem mere excuses. Reflective thinking that continues to doubt, question, and test warranted assertions can lead to reasonable rationalizations.Alan G. Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-63342481748745001382018-02-27T21:55:13.734-08:002018-02-27T21:55:13.734-08:00Rationalization as explanation of warranted assert...Rationalization as explanation of warranted assertions? But also setting aside argument from authority and letting go of ideological truths? Sounds like a rationalization about rationalizations. Russel's teapot is an argument that it's not really a matter of making claims then others have to disprove them.Callan S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-17694854950315063652018-02-26T07:58:29.802-08:002018-02-26T07:58:29.802-08:00My understandings: Rationalization as justificati...My understandings: Rationalization as justifications of conclusions is the traditional type of rationalization (apriorism?). It is characterized by a need for certainty and an ideological (authoritarian) thinking style. <br /><br />But there is also rationalization as explanation of warranted assertions. Situated in time and place, new experiences, new information, allow the warranted assertions to be continually revised or replaced. This reasonable kind of rationalization also helps us to own up to our cognitive biases and to set aside arguments from authority and to let go of ideological Truths. <br /><br />These understandings come mostly from reading John Dewey, though Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Rorty, Toulmin, and others may be mixed in. Please show where my understandings are flawed. Alan G. Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-13437669136477496652018-02-22T13:13:31.385-08:002018-02-22T13:13:31.385-08:00good stuff, now will the cog-biases of academics k...good stuff, now will the cog-biases of academics keep them from absorbing this info, and round and round we go?<br />-dmfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com