# To what extent does irrationality occur because of a lack of a rationally-trained audience who would otherwise spot the tricks and fallacies?

Relevance
• j153e
Lv 7
8 months ago

Rationality uses logics and facts; by definition, irrationality is at best incompletely logical and/or fact-based.

It is worth noting that it is irrational to disregard facts even if the facts are contrary to one's schema (e.g., ignoring perturbations in Mercury's orbit, Swedenborg's far-seeing, etc.).  Reductive and selective use of facts to mean simply that which is atom-based and controllably replicable is not fully logical--unless one's definition of fact is strictly materialistic, and as such is made plain prior to such ratiocination.

Similarly, over-reliance on one's preferred system of logic is illogical, given the explanation of inadequacies of any sufficiently strongly axiomized logical system, as proven by Godel, Cohen, et al.

Therefore, it is a task in philosophy and in reasoning generally to examine the axioms of any given presentation, especially the too-often unstated or assumed axioms of facticity (i.e., what the presentation defines as factness) and logic (i.e., mindful of the Godel-Cohen limits, then, what type of logic is being used):

Monotonic first order logic, developed by Frege, Bolzano, and Boole, which includes aristotelian logic as a subset;

Non-monotonic logics (useful for defeasible contingency arguments);

Fuzzy logic; useful re ai;

N-valued logics; e.g., Lukasiewicz' trivalent logic.

There are many other logics, often subsets of the general categories listed above, e.g. abductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, probabilistic reasoning, statistical reasoning, paraconsistent reasoning, higher order logics, non-bivalent Boolean logic, etc.

As for your question, "extent" is a quantifier, and would be determined by simple gatherings of % metrics of defined irrationalities detected by a given audience ( subsets, such as individuals) in a given presentation.

• 8 months ago

That "rationality uses (only) logic & facts" is almost naïve. Actually it is.

Rationality uses what is known as A THEORY of knowledge & this

can be EXTREMELY CONFLICTING.

E.g. Is Greta Thunberg & Extinction rebellion right & correct or is the

present Republican Party headed by President Donald Trump.(who

reckons that global Climate change and Terrestrial HEATING is not

occurring).

And j153e doesn't BEGIN TO RATIONALLY explain WHO is more

rational & correct here. And that's why I have labelled his HISTORICIST

philosophy as faulty ; & he should STICK WITH/ TO RELIGIOUS

sector with his scientistic rote philosophy. I have ALSO fully explained

why his naïve historicist LOGIC (when we should be talking Of Philosophy)

& so-called-facts when posting here to this PHILOSOPHY audience.

And because of these 3 reasons he is UNABLE TO TALK of (rational)

MISTAKES... & of (rational) CRITICISM.

So much for talking here to-a-Philosophy-AUDIANCE !

• Anonymous
8 months ago

In your case I'd say that it's 100% irrational for you to think you could obtain an accurate answer here that is backed up with hard, verifiable research data.

ANOTHER FAIL

• RP
Lv 7
8 months ago

Probably to a significant extent. If people are aware of tricks and fallacies, they are obvious when encountered, but, if not, there's no way to spot them and, as a result, such people are susceptible to being misled.