Rationality

{{bronze}}{{skepnav}}
{{hatnote|Not to be confused with [[Rationalism]], which refers to the [[Epistemology|epistemological]] view that '''reason''' (in contrast to [[Empiricism|experience]]) is the basis of all knowledge. Also ''definitely'' not to be confused with [[rationalization]], which is the practice of convincing oneself that bad ideas are actually good, [[Sunk cost fallacy|usually after a decision has been made based on said bad idea and it's too late to take it back]].}}
{{cquote|To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the [[dead]], or endeavoring to convert an [[atheist]] by scripture.|||[[Thomas Paine]] (c. 1776)<ref>[https://ia800303.us.archive.org/1/items/cihm_39115/cihm_39115.pdf ''The American Crisis…''] by Thomas Paine (1796), p. 117</ref>}}
{{cquote| ’Tis the last key-stone that makes up the arch…

Then stands it a triumphal mark! Then men 

Observe the strength, the height, the why and when

It was erected; and still walking under,

Meet some new matter to look up, and wonder.|||William Hazlitt, [http://essays.quotidiana.org/hazlitt/genius_and_common_sense/ “On Genius and Common Sense”], in ''Table Talk'', 31-35.}}
'''Rationality''' is the use of logical [[reasoning]] in the areas of discourse and problem-solving. It is also the quality of being rational.

Guess what this wiki likes?

==Definition==
Like many other basic words, its meaning can be obscure and sometimes difficult. To be "[[rational]]" is generally considered to mean employing [[logic]]al consistency and deriving appropriate conclusions from acceptable assumptions.  Naturally, "consistency" and "appropriate" and "acceptable" all vary widely from person to person, which is one of the major problems with claiming to be "rational". Everyone will think they're being ''rational'' because they are happy with their assumptions and their own consistency. However, there are some accepted methods in place to try and standardise, such as in [[rationalism]] or [[science]].

Typically, dictionaries define rationality as: the quality or state of being rational; the possession of reason; agreeableness to reason; reasonableness; the exercise of reason.<ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rationality Rationality: Dictionary.com]</ref><ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Rationality Rationality: merriam-webster]</ref>

===LessWrong===
[[LessWrong]]’s take on the definition is as follows:<ref>[https://www.lesswrong.com/about About LessWrong]</ref>
*Rationality is thinking in ways which systematically arrive at truth.
*Rationality is thinking in ways which cause you to systematically achieve your goals.
*Rationality is trying to do better on purpose.
*Rationality is reasoning well even in the face of massive uncertainty.
*Rationality is making good decisions even when it’s hard.
*Rationality is being self-aware, understanding how your own mind works, and applying this knowledge to thinking better.

==Epistemic vs. instrumental rationality==
Two types of rationality are often contrasted with each other: Epistemic and instrumental rationality. The former represents rationality in terms of determining and holding true [[belief]]s. The latter consists of being able to make decisions that most {{wpl|Efficiency|efficiently}} achieve one's goals, whether or not said goals may be considered rational.<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationality-instrumental/ Instrumental rationality], Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> This dichotomy is sometimes argued to be a [[false dichotomy|false one]] by those who see instrumental rationality as a special case of epistemic rationality, or deny that intentions provide sufficient reason to take action toward their realization.<ref>Joseph Raz. [http://www.jesp.org/PDF/6863_Raz-vol-1-no-1-rev.pdf The Myth of Instrumental Rationality.] ''Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy'', vol. 1, no. 1, 2005</ref>

==Bounded rationality==
"Bounded rationality" is a term coined by Herbert Simon used to refer to a conception of agents opposed to "rational actor" models in which agents act with optimal or perfect rationality. Bounded rationality asserts that agents will — at least some of the time — not act optimally due to [[cognitive bias|cognitive constraints]]. Instead, they do what Simon referred to as "satisficing", a [[Fun:Portmanteau|portmanteau]] of "satisfy" and "suffice".<ref group=note>The similarity of "satisfice" to "[[wikt:Sacrifice|sacrifice]]" is [[Coincidence|coincidental]], but appropriate, given the principles of "[[garbage in garbage out]]" (e.g. low-quality input leads to low-quality output) and {{wpl|Trade-off|trade-offs}} (e.g. complete {{wpl|perfection}} is impossible, and gains in one area tend to require and correspond to losses in something else). (Incidentally, this relation to trade-offs is why we have linked to the {{wpl|Wiktionary}} page on the concept of sacrifice rather than [[Sacrifice|our own]], since our page on sacrifice focuses on the concept as it pertains to [[religion]], rather than the general term in the sense of "giving up something beneficial in exchange for some other benefit".)</ref> That is, they will seek a solution that is "good enough" for their own purposes.<ref>Bryan D. Jones. [http://www.princeton.edu/~smeunier/JonesBounded1.pdf Bounded Rationality.] Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 1999. 2:297–321</ref>

==Ecological rationality==
The concept of ecological rationality draws on bounded rationality and the strategy of satisficing. Ecological rationality posits that [[cognitive bias]]es and [[heuristic]]s are not inherently irrational but in certain conditions are preferable to a strict adherence to formal logic and probability theory. This is because the extra effort and time expended to consider all information in the framework of formal models of rationality does not give enough extra benefit over using a simple heuristic to make a decision. Thus, employing rough heuristics may be more "rational" than using what are normally considered "rational" methods.<ref>Gerd Gigerenzer and Wolfgang Gassmaier. [http://citrixweb.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/montez/upload/PaperOfTheMonth/gigerenzer_gaissmaier_2011-1-2.pdf Heuristic Decision Making.] Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2011. 62:451–82</ref>

==Rationality vs. emotion?==
{{cquote|”Most of us think of ourselves as thinking creatures who feel, but we are actually feeling creatures who think.”|||Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor,  [https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_my_stroke_of_insight “My Stroke of Insight”], [[TED Talks]], March, 2008}}

Emotion is often contrasted with rationality. However, research in [[neuroscience]] and [[cognitive science]], most notably by Antonio Damasio, has demonstrated that reason cannot function properly in the absence of emotion. Damasio investigated patients with damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, which mediates activity between higher-order thought in the frontal lobe and emotional responses in the limbic system. Patients with this type of brain damage did not lose their ability to think logically, but suffered from a lack of emotional affect, rendering them unable to make ordinary, everyday decisions.<ref>[https://www.thecut.com/2016/06/how-only-using-logic-destroyed-a-man.html How Only Using Logic to Make Decisions Destroyed a Man's Life]</ref> Without emotional affect to (among other things) assign values to what are often arbitrary choices, the patients could generate and weigh different alternatives against each other in their minds, but were incapable of actually deciding between them.{{efn|This concept of emotion supplementing rationality has been known about for quite some time, long before it was confirmed through the [[scientific method]]. As an example, according to [[Islam]]ic mythology (yes, this was written alongside the [[Quran]]{{fact}}), Allah gave humans both emotions and rationality in order to enable them to make independent yet well thought-out decisions, which they would need to do in order to take care of the Earth;{{fact}} [[angel]]s, in contrast, are held to be beings of pure rationality, which makes them fine servants and excellent at following instructions, but ''absolutely abysmal'' at taking initiative to do things without being told to.{{fact}} (This makes it [[Irony|all the more pitiful]] that [[Wahhabism|many modern-day Muslims]] ([[DAESH|''far'' too many of them]], to be brutally honest) [[Fundamentalism|tend to refuse to engage in rational thought]].{{fact|joke}})}}

This might be conceived of as a case similar to the problem of Buridan's ass. In this [[thought experiment]], an ass<ref group=note>That is, a donkey. Get your mind out of the gutter!</ref> is placed in a position equidistant from two stacks of hay. The ass will move toward the closest stack of hay, but remains stuck in its initial position because neither one is closer and so will starve itself because of its inability to choose "rationally" between the stacks. If the ass picks one stack at random to avoid starving, is this decision ''rational''? This question has invited much navel-gazing over the definition of rationality in philosophical arenas.<ref>Roger A. Shiner. [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2041-6962.1973.tb01148.x/abstract The Non-Rationality of Buridan's Ass.] ''The Southern Journal of Philosophy Volume'' 11, Issue 4, pages 329–335, Winter 1973</ref>

==Rationality and discovery==
Critical Rationalism can be seen as complementary to serendipity in scientific discovery. Yet cognitive science made rationality a subject even in the area of finding new theories, and laws, started by the computational models in many machine learning areas. These movements focus on any rational process, and see scientific discovery as the main challenge of any creative rational learning process, in science, and in the long run, in general, by modelling the whole brain logically, on a computer.<ref>Alexander P. M. van den Bosch. [http://www.rug.nl/research/portal/publications/rationality-in-discovery(42779f78-52fd-4783-8ef6-2cdb2ec7742a).html Rationality in Discovery], 2001.</ref>

==Rationality and power==
A number of thinkers have investigated the notion of rationality, or what is considered "rational", as being intertwined with {{wpl|Power (social and political)|power relations|.}} Max Weber and [[Michel Foucault]], for example, focused on the use of instrumental rationality in the process of "[[rationalization]]," i.e., how bureaucratic power imposes "rational" methods on citizens for its own ends.<ref>John O'Neill. [http://www.csun.edu/~snk1966/John%20O'Neil%20--%20The%20Disciplinary%20Society%20-%20From%20Weber%20to%20Foucault.pdf The Disciplinary Society: From Weber to Foucault.] ''The British Journal of Sociology'', Vol. 37, No. 1 (Mar., 1986), pp. 42-60</ref>

==Relation to rationalism==
Rationality should not be confused with [[rationalism]]. Rationality is used to describe a quality of discourse or behavior; rationalism is a philosophy recognizing reason as the prime (or only) "way of knowing".

==Alternatives==
There are, of course, [[other ways of knowing]], but these have the disadvantage of not working.

==See also==
*[[Empiricism]]
*[[Objectivism]], a pseudo-philosophy invented by [[Ayn Rand]] and allegedly based on rationality
*[[Rationalism]]

==External links==
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationality-historicist/ Historicist Theories of Rationality], Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20160318162804/http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/05/20/myths-about-rationality/ Myths About Rationality], Jamie Hale, PsychCentral
*Wolfgang Spohn. [http://www.uni-konstanz.de/FuF/Philo/Philosophie/philosophie/files/wspohn45.pdf The Many Facets of the Theory of Rationality.] ''Croatian Journal of Philosophy'' 2 (3):249-264.
*Alexander van den Bosch. [http://www.rug.nl/research/portal/publications/rationality-in-discovery(42779f78-52fd-4783-8ef6-2cdb2ec7742a).html Rationality in Discovery], Groningen University Research Page.
*Richard Samuels, Stephen Stich, and Luc Faucher [http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/ArchiveFolder/Research%20Group/Publications/Reason/ReasonRationality.htm Reason and Rationality.] In ''Handbook of Epistemology'' ed. by Matti Sintonen, et al.

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

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

[[Category:Rationalism]]

Categories: Rationalism