Rationalism

{{bronze}}{{Philosophyscience}}
{{hatnote|Not to be confused with [[Rationality]], which simply refers to the process of '''being reasonable'''. Were you looking for the [[cult]] known as [[LessWrong]], which claims to promote rationality?}}

'''Rationalism''' is a [[philosophy]] in which a high regard is given to reason (specifically [[logic]]).<ref>[https://www.britannica.com/topic/rationalism Rationalism], Encyclopaedia Britanica</ref>

From the strict philosophical standpoint, rationalism is the view that all or most [[truth]] is deductive and ''[[a priori]]'', deriving logically from a set of [[axiom]]s gained by intuition or inherent knowledge (and ''not'' from studying the world around us empirically).<ref name=stanford>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/ Rationalism vs. Empiricism], Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> The terms ''continental rationalism'' and ''Cartesian rationalism'' are sometimes used in reference to the Early Modern school of thought.<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/continental-rationalism/ Continental Rationalism], Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.</ref>

The term is more commonly used to refer to a synthesis of continental rationalism with its former rival philosophy, [[empiricism]]. This looser rationalism holds that empirical observation is more useful than intuition for gaining one's starting axioms, but one can use deductive reasoning from these axioms just as well. The best embodiment of this way of gaining knowledge is the [[scientific method]]; hence, rationalists tend to give high regard to [[science]], designating it as the primary or sole proper source of truth.

[[RationalWiki]] is devoted to this sort of rational analysis of empirical [[evidence]] to form conclusions; most RationalWiki editors are very skeptical of [[other ways of knowing]].

==Definitions==
===General use===
{{main|Rationality}}

The idea of being "rational" is distinct and broader than the philosophy of rationalism. To be "rational" is synonymous with a "sane" or "functional" way of thinking.  If one is "rational," then in common parlance this means that one can think clearly and is capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.

The opposite term, "irrational," is used to signify someone who cannot or will not think clearly.  If a thought or action is “irrational,” it signifies something that is not just incorrect, but perverse, insane, or beneath consideration.

===Historical rationalism===

Ideas resembling rationalism were first formulated in classical times. Many of [[Plato]]'s [[Socrates|Socratic]] dialogues would use a conversational process to [[Reductio ad absurdum|work out logical inconsistencies]] in ideas that were held by contemporaries to be "[[common sense]]," such as the definition of "the good." At the time, virtually everyone — even the great philosophers — believed that various things were known by people inherently. Aside from a few schools of thought which suggested that ''nothing'' could ever be known as true ([[pyrrhonism]]), few thought to discard ''a priori'' [[belief]]s and start from scratch with only that which was known from experience.

The 16<sup>th</sup> century philosopher [[Descartes]], however, attempted to create a whole philosophy through pure reason in his ''Discourse on Method'' and its succeeding works: he began with methodological doubt to ascertain the only thing about which it seemed he could be certain &mdash; that there was an "I" that was thinking. His process ushered in a new era in rationalism, concurrent with the greater [[Enlightenment]]. At that time the philosophy began to resemble modern empiricism more than its own ancient ancestor, especially during the era of Romanticism when Enlightenment ideas were challenged and sensory perception was given more of a hearing.

Loose use in the [[time]] since has led to the fuzzy state of the term today, particularly when combined with the similar but much broader notion of ''being'' [[rationality|rational]].

===Rationalism in psychology===
Rationalism in  [[psychology]] is identified with the philosophical tradition of the same name and refers to the school of thought that sees certain elements of cognition as innate. For this reason, it is sometimes used synonymously with the terms "innatism" or "nativism" though the synonymy is not particularly deep as "innatism" or "nativism" sees them as innate in the thicker sense of that one at least can be born with them preset exactly in a certain, perhaps permanent, way (whether this ever actually happens is beside the point) and Rationalism sees them as innate in the thinner sense that one is simply born with them waiting to be set more exactly as one is psychologically prepares to understand what they are about and perhaps never completely fixable once set for the first time. During the 20th century, [[Noam Chomsky]] became associated with rationalism due to his positing the concept of an innate "language acquisition device."<ref>[http://eslking.com/library2/collections/language/acquisition/fla/innatist_lang_theory.pdf Innatist/Innate/Nativist/Rationalist/Mentalist Theory]</ref>

===Rationalism in economics===
Rationalism, or "[[economics|economic]] rationalism," is also a term of art in economics. It is generally used today in [[Australia]] to refer to the local brand of [[neoliberalism|neoliberal]] economic and political policy, though it was also used by scholars such as Max Weber in reference to the [[Protestant work ethic]].<ref>John Quiggin. [http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin/JournalArticles97/Econrat97.html Economic Rationalism.] ''Crossings'', 2(1), 3-12.</ref>

===Other contemporary uses===
'''Rationalism''' is also used as a self-descriptor by followers of [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]], and the community that has grown up around him (in particular the website [[LessWrong]]).<ref name="ScottAlexander2016">[[Scott Alexander]], [http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/04/the-ideology-is-not-the-movement/ The Ideology Is Not The Movement], Slate Star Codex</ref> [[Scott Alexander]] argues that, in this context, it refers less to a particular set of beliefs (an ideology), but more to the social community those beliefs support, a "tribe".<ref name="ScottAlexander2016" />

==Means-ends rationalism==

Another straightforward conception of rationality is that an individual acts rationally if they act in the way that, on reflection, they believe best suits achievement of their aims.  This conception, naturally, gives rise to the common conception when “on reflection” it is believed that the aim of truth can best be achieved through factual analysis and the scientific method.

This approach, however, is problematic, as it denies the existence of any sort of objective logic independent of human perception. Many, on reflection, believe that [[astrology]], [[Scientology]], [[homeopathy]] and other ridiculous [[bullshit|nonsense]] best suits achievement of their aims.  If these people are to be held to be irrational, a new criterion must be put in the place of “on reflection”.  Usually the criterion is modified such that the rational person must “reasonably believe” they have a methodology to achieve their aims, leaving question of what it means to “reasonably believe” that a methodology will achieve certain aims.<ref>Badly summarised from [[Alvin Plantinga]], A. Warrant: The Current Debate. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 1993. p132.</ref>

==Sanity and proper function==

[[Alvin Plantinga]]'s concept of rationalism neatly distinguishes reason from "raving madness" by conceiving of reason as "not raving mad".<ref>Badly summarised from Plantinga, A. Warrant: The Current Debate. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 1993. p134.</ref> Of course, Plantinga has to give us a good idea of what is not "raving mad", which he does with his concept of "proper function".  Just as a clock, functioning properly, is a reliable indicator of the time, human senses, functioning properly, are reliable indicators of the world. Acting in accordance with the proper function of our faculties is rational.

The problem of what constitutes ''function'', and ''proper function'' at that, is more than a question of what our faculties do (a fast clock tells the incorrect time, but this is not its ''function''). Both function and proper function have an element of what things ''should'' be doing. As ''should'' is a difficult concept to introduce in a mechanistic description of how things happen to be, Plantinga sources the "should", the "purpose" of our faculties in a concept of [[God]].

==Critical rationalism==
{{wpl|Critical rationalism}} (©[[Karl Popper]]) differentiates from the above conceptions of rationality by rejecting any positive content in reason.  “Reason”, critical rationalism holds, does not provide 'reasons': it does not give positive recommendations about what beliefs should be held.  Reason operates negatively, restricting the beliefs that can be held.  It does this through criticism, subjecting pre-adopted beliefs to tests in an effort to refute them.

== Empiricism versus Rationalism ==

The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.

Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can provide. Second, they construct accounts of how reason in some form or other provides that additional information about the world. Empiricists present complementary lines of thought. First, they develop accounts of how experience provides the information that rationalists cite, insofar as we have it in the first place. (Empiricists will at times opt for skepticism as an alternative to rationalism: if experience cannot provide the concepts or knowledge the rationalists cite, then we don't have them.) Second, empiricists attack the rationalists' accounts of how reason is a source of concepts or knowledge.

== See also ==
*[[Rationality]]
*[[Rationalization]]

==References==
{{reflist|2|90%}}

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[category:Philosophy of science]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Rationalism| ]]

Categories: Philosophy, Philosophy of science, Psychology, Rationalism