[ExI] L'Affaire Bradbury

[BillK]

On 4/5/09, Lee Corbin wrote:
<snip>
>  They fear that rational argument may not go their way. They
>  value, in decreasing order,
>
>      1. prevailing in an argument, especially anything
>         touching on values
>      2. prevailing with reason
>      3. finding and speaking the truth
>
>  Now none of us can claim that he or she always puts number three
>  first, but if we find that we are engaging in sheer calumny,
>  or merely expressing our feelings and loathings, then for
>  sure you know we are elevating our desire to prevail over
>  everything else, including both rationality and a desire to
>  get at the truth.
>


The error in your modest proposal is that rationality isn't the whole picture.
There are more important things than being rational.
(Don't tell the Bayesians)  ;)

If you are discussing whether 2 + 2 = 4, then fine, be as rational as you like.

But if you are discussing religion or politics (the big no-nos), then
you have to bring real practical considerations in the discussions.
Crimes against humanity invalidate the most logical of reasoning.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter if you are rational and logically
correct, you still lose the discussion.

One can think of situations where logical analysis might recommend the
enslavement of women, or the forced labor of children, or slavery of
the unemployed, etc. etc. might produce better results in some areas.
But these arguments lose because they are trumped by 'That's no way to
treat human beings!'.

Rationality is pretty much useless in matters of human relationships,
on the small and large scale.

BillK