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

7 Answers

Relevance
  • j153e
    Lv 7
    1 month ago
    Favorite Answer

    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.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 1 month 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 ! 

    • ...Show all comments
    • peter m
      Lv 6
      1 month agoReport

      Ask philosophers if Greta Thunberg's Environmental Emergency is correct, & whether it is a real part of "environmental philosophy". Their answer or answers should tell you enough to know...

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 month 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

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • RP
    Lv 7
    1 month 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.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    rationally trained audience?

    • Hercules1 month agoReport

      Spotting fallacies, demanding evidence to back claims, aware of their own cognitive biases etc 

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 1 month ago

    You are presenting a speaker to an audience? Of what, zealots? Do you mean a political rally? It's a bit vague - and whose irrationality do you mean? That of the audience? Manifested in their behavior, or just in believe false ideas? But yes, certainly taking a rational look at things we're told is a good defense against being told false things.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 1 month ago

    The vast majority or actions have no audience, so to no great extent at all. Are you a heavy drinker? Just asking.

    • Hercules1 month agoReport

      ‘Spread’ would be a better word than ‘occur’, and ‘audienceS’ would include anyone in a group who is listening. Would you then say that actions don’t include all group conversations?

    • Log in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.