Is rational thinking really... RATIONAL?

Question

Sounds like a loop hole, ey? But think about it. Our sciences, technologies, decisions, etc. are produced mainly by rational thinking, that is, thinking logically and properly producing information with reason to what we believe is or is not right. Notice that there is the the word "Believe" in my definition. This means what we accept to be true AND logical... is what we believe to be true and logical. So, rational thinking comes from what we believe, PLUS proofs, such as experimentation, and research. But is what we discover really what is? Can the truth be so easily defined by what we see, hear, touch, taste, smell, and THINK? Wouldn't this lead more to a truth of what we THINK is, rather that WHAT is? Is it not true that "what is... is?" I leave you, dear people, to think on these. Good day.

Answer 1

The definition of being rational is relative for each and every individual, I would grant that. But where you achieve a commonality with others around you, the greater your belief is that what you are thinking and the manner of your reasoning is rational since it is shared by others.

That is the very essence of society and social interaction. Conformity is asserted and that binds individuals together into a group stronger in their belief than a nonconformist individual. That is also the basis for the assertion of a social standard or norm that all others are compelled to observe. Yet, it does not take away the freedom to think as an individual, and to express dissent if necessary.

Answer 2

Check out Locke's "Essay concerning human understanding"
and Immanuel Kant.

Kant argued that the rational order of the world as known by science could never be accounted for merely by the fortuitous accumulation of sense perceptions. It was instead the product of the rule-based activity of "synthesis". This consisted of conceptual unification and integration carried out by the mind through concepts or the "categories of the understanding" operating on the perceptual manifold within space and time, which are not concepts, but forms of sensibility that are a priori necessary conditions for any possible experience.(wikipedia)

Basically: You don't see the world in rational way, you see whatever your mind creates based on sensation (or what you call "believe")
So yes, what is, is really what you think is, may your thinking be "rational" or not

When you start talking logic or research and proof you open a totally different can which has to be discussed under this precondition.

Answer 3

Science is taking an assumption(belief) and testing it in the real world environment. If it has the expected(predicted) results then the assumption is said to be proven from which further assumptions may be made and again tested. The underlying Great Assumption here, is that what we can sense in some manner is the real world. Thus our body of knowledge is true for our defined concept of reality.

Other thinkers believe that other realities may exist. These would have their own set of rules. Some of them maybe extrapolations from the scientific reality. But NONE of these have been proven within the scientific reality. There is no indication that the realities merge at any point.

Answer 4

may i rephrase your question to :' does rational thinking leads us to the hard, undeniable, untimate truth ?' seems like the point you were trying to adress is whether rational and logical thinking as employed by science would expand and guide our knowledge towards the objective truth. This claim rooted in cartesian philosophy that claimed ratio would be human main and only way to get through many deceiving layers of reality to get to the basic underlying truth. the problem is that we can use logic to interpolate evidents into patterns of fact that holds to be the truth, but what defines the truth itself lies in our preconception and belief. But completely denies the conception of objective rationality and saying that everything is constructed by our mind is as naive as the view that relies completely on objective rationality. The truth is the correlation, congruance, and reciprocal relationship between the object of our observation, the pattern and framework developed by our mind, and our subjective values and beliefs that take part and often guides our observation and thinking process

Answer 5

Hmmm. I would say that rational thinking, particularly with respect to logic has to follow certain rules, e.g two statements can't contradict each other.

So I can try to justify logical thinking by producing an argument for it: "logical thinking has lead to more concrete useful results than any other way of thinking, therefore it is the most useful and best way to think." However this argument itself relies on logic, and to an objective observer is just as acceptable as a line of thinking which goes that "my way of thinking is the best because I think that way" because any attempt to justify a way of thinking will rely on itself to justify itself, this is an example of circular reasoning which is not allowed under the laws of logic, making logic self defeating.

Does that mean we must therefore accept a relativistic approach which says that all ways are equal. Logically yes, but we have just said that logical thinking cannot justify itself. Should we therefore look to a way of thinking that does allow circular reasoning? which one of the many should we follow? anyone we choose to? That is what we are now allowed to do.

Or maybe we should say o.k. logic relies on logic to justify itself, but we should accept that inherent contradiction and carry on using it. After all it is the most productive way of thinking and relativism has no objection to us thinking logically. I would argue that we need a framework and logical thinking provides the best framework so i will continue to use it and I will let others do as they please.

Answer 6

I like Benjamin's tack. It could be that what you describe is why Indian Philosophers call it 'Maya'.
You could also argue that all thinking is rational in the sense that it is what the mind does. We seem to have another faculty with which we can check or guide the mind.

Answer 7

Are you a philosopher or something - you're certainly deep. Anyway, what's rational these days?!! Surely it's different for different people !!

Answer 8

...which reminds me of another question: "why is common sense not-so-common nowadays?"